* Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> [090528 09:49]: > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Aidan Van Dyk <ai...@highrise.ca> wrote: > > All that based on the assumption that when the project switches to git, > > they actually want all the CVS history in their official tree. Its > > certainly not necessary, and possibly not even desirable... PostgreSQL > > could just as easily to a "linus" style switch when they switch to git, > > and just "import" the latest release in each branch as the starting > > point for each branch. The git repository will have no history, and > > people can choose which history they want to graft in... CVSROOT can be > > made available as a historical download. > > That would suck for me. I use git log a lot to see how things have > changed over time.
No, the whole point is that you graft whatever history *you* want in... So if PostgreSQL "offical" git only starts when the offical VCS was in git, you graft on gpo, or git, or some personal one-time cvs2git or parsecvs history you want in... It would be the projects way of saying basically "None of the current cvs imports are perfect and we recognize that. So we're starting fresh, use whatever historical cvs import *you* find best for your history and graft it in". Just the linux kernel has a few "historical" repos available for people to graft into linus's tree which only started in 2.6.12. If you have work that requires the history of the current gpo repo, you keep using it. If you have work requring the current git repo, you keep using it. If you have no work, but you're a stickler for perfect imports, you start working on parsecvs and cvs2git, and make a new history every time you find another quirk... a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
