From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pgindent run for 9.0, second run |
Date: | 2010-07-20 16:34:25 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimBEeeO5BLAVDXkXcty_mmLkRmjmVmJpcrhJWul@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 18:32, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> It would result in a massive merge commit and the duplication of
>> the entire history.
>
> Ah, well, if the two repositories don't share the same IDs, it a
> clear no-go. Now that I think about it, it would be a bit much to
> expect those to match on independent conversions from CVS.
>
> How is this going to play out when we do the "official" conversion
> to git? Will those of us on repositories based off of
> git.postgresql.org be faced with similar issues, or are we using the
> repo there as the base for the conversion?
No, it will be a completely new repository. Those with the old one
will need to extract a patch from that and then apply it to the new
one.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-07-20 16:42:25 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pgindent run for 9.0, second run |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-07-20 16:32:51 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pgindent run for 9.0, second run |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-07-20 16:42:25 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pgindent run for 9.0, second run |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-07-20 16:32:51 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pgindent run for 9.0, second run |