Re: Git out of sync vs. CVS

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 15:36, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:52, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 16:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 01:53, Kevin Grittner
>>>>>> <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>>>>>>> Magnus Hagander  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the Git repository is missing parts of two non-recent commits.
>>>>>>>> We've seen this happen before.
>>>>>>> That seems like kind of a blasé attitude toward something upon which
>>>>>>> some people rely.
>>>>>> For the record, I am one of those people. I use it for *all* my
>>>>>> postgresql development. And this is a serious pain.
>>>>> FWIW, I am in favor of rewinding and making everyone rebase, but I
>>>>> think we should do it ASAP.
>>>> Ok, I started looking at this.
>>>>
>>>> First, it's not at all clear to me what Peter means wiht his comments.
>>>> But it happens to be that one of the commits he's referring to is all
>>>> the way back in August. So we'd have to rewind it all that way. Do we
>>>> really want to do that, or do we want to do a manual commit on the
>>>> repository bringing it back in sync instead? (either by knowing what's
>>>> wrong with those commits, or do a complete diff of cvs head vs git
>>>> head)
>>>
>>> Actually, such a correction patch would be nice and short. Attached
>>> for reference. Thoughts?
>>
>> That seems better than rewinding the history all the way back to August.
>
> It seems pretty horrible to me.  That means we'll have a range of
> times 5 months long for which the git repository doesn't match CVS.

Yes.

But how bad is that really the way we do things now? It still works
perfectly fine for development against HEAD, which believe is what
most people are using it for at this point. (As long as somebody keeps
finding these things when they happen, that is)

I'm going to do the fixup for now. We can always rewind past that one
later if we have to, it's not like it's going to get any worse.

> Admittedly, I understand that this is going to be extremely painful
> for anyone who (like Heikki) has to manage a substantial private
> branch.

Well, git actually picks that up reasonably well these days, but it's
still a bit of a pain. Also, all the links people have posted will no
longer be valid, etc.

> I haven't been in a hurry to see us move to git because the git mirror
> is, for most purposes, just as good.  But if the git mirror is going
> to start sucking, then I'm in a hurry.  The way I used to work before
> I learned git seems laughable now, and I do NOT want to go back.

I can only agree with this. I would very much like to see that
discussion opened again - after we've released 9.0. But for that
reason, it'd be good if we could take care of the issues listed on the
wiki page before that happens :-)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/