Git out of sync vs. CVS
in [PgSql]
|
From: "Kevin Grittner" on 21 Jan 2010 11:03 Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I have noticed that CVS operations (at least from the user's > viewpoint) work in local time. So even if the clocks are synced, > a different TZ setting could conceivably lead to issues. Hmmm... If that were the issue I would think we'd've seen the problem more often. From reading over the Ruby code, it appears to me that if a commit happens when fromcvs is scanning for recent commits, and commit touches a part the scan has already passed, we'd see anomalies like this, although my weak Ruby skills leave me less than 100% sure. The same skill deficiency means it would take me at least three FTE days to fix the flaw in fromcvs, which I'd have to do off-hours. So add me to the list of people who think that if these are going to be recurring, we should look at moving from cvs to git as soon as 9.0 is released. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 21 Jan 2010 11:25 Magnus Hagander <magnus(a)hagander.net> writes: > So the list really isn't very long. I think it's perfectly possible to > clear it off before the release. Because we still only want to change > after the release, or are you saying once those are fixed, we can > change even if we happen to be in beta at the time? When and if we have the prerequisite tasks done, it'll be time enough to think about exactly when to schedule the move. Given the amount of movement on the prerequisites in the past year, I'm not planning to worry about it today. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 21 Jan 2010 11:29 "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner(a)wicourts.gov> writes: > Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner(a)wicourts.gov> writes: >>> So add me to the list of people who think that if >>> these are going to be recurring, we should look at moving from >>> cvs to git as soon as 9.0 is released. >> >> The gating factor is not release schedule; it is the still- >> unaddressed tasks that must be done before we can consider moving. >> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Switching_PostgreSQL_from_CVS_to_Git > If you think people can work on that list without risk of delaying > the release, OK. I was assuming that such work would be too > disruptive to work on at this point in a release cycle, and might > possibly pull time from folks who would otherwise be working on the > release. Do you disagree? Oh, if you meant that people should start dealing with those tasks after release, that's fine with me. I read your comment to be that we should schedule the move for immediately after release, prerequisites or no. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 21 Jan 2010 11:11 "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner(a)wicourts.gov> writes: > So add me to the list of people who think that if > these are going to be recurring, we should look at moving from cvs > to git as soon as 9.0 is released. The gating factor is not release schedule; it is the still-unaddressed tasks that must be done before we can consider moving. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Switching_PostgreSQL_from_CVS_to_Git regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Magnus Hagander on 21 Jan 2010 11:21
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 17:11, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner(a)wicourts.gov> writes: >> So add me to the list of people who think that if >> these are going to be recurring, we should look at moving from cvs >> to git as soon as 9.0 is released. > > The gating factor is not release schedule; it is the still-unaddressed > tasks that must be done before we can consider moving. > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Switching_PostgreSQL_from_CVS_to_Git Assuming git-cvsserver works as advertised (which we should verify of course) there are really only two points left: "Confirm past releases can be built identically from Git, using binary diff " which I intend to look at, and "Provide backport examples " which Heikki has promised to look at Unless the NLS scripts actually do commits, in which case they also have to be changed. So the list really isn't very long. I think it's perfectly possible to clear it off before the release. Because we still only want to change after the release, or are you saying once those are fixed, we can change even if we happen to be in beta at the time? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |