Tags missing from GIT mirror?
in [PgSql]
|
From: Florian Pflug on 12 May 2010 16:57 On 12.05.2010, at 22:22, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Florian Pflug <fgp(a)phlo.org> writes: >> Yeah, but CVS has tags for the alphas and betas. Those are missing >> from the GIT mirror as the CVS-to-GIT converter apparently ignores >> tags completely :-(. Since there are no branches for the betas, >> this leaves the GIT repository without any trace that beta1 exists >> at all... > > Really? Then it wouldn't know about any past point-releases > either :-( It doesn't :-( Best regards Florian Pflug -- 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: Peter Eisentraut on 13 May 2010 03:20 On ons, 2010-05-12 at 16:11 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Of course, we might also find some other brokenness if we try to import > all the tags. Also, be aware of this (from > <http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/cvs2git.html>): > > Differences between CVS and git branch/tag models: CVS allows a > branch or tag to be created from arbitrary combinations of source > revisions from multiple source branches. It even allows file > revisions that were never contemporaneous to be added to a single > branch/tag. Git, on the other hand, only allows the full source > tree, as it existed at some instant in the history, to be branched > or tagged as a unit. Moreover, the ancestry of a git revision makes > implications about the contents of that revision. This difference > means that it is fundamentally impossible to represent an arbitrary > CVS history in a git repository 100% faithfully. Right, and omitting tags was in fact one of the "features" of fromcvs that made us use it, because any tool that tries to convert tags will explode on our CVS tree, for reasons explained in the above paragraph. We have also discussed this in more detail about three times before. -- 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: Andrew Dunstan on 13 May 2010 04:41 Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On ons, 2010-05-12 at 16:11 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> Of course, we might also find some other brokenness if we try to import >> all the tags. Also, be aware of this (from >> <http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/cvs2git.html>): >> >> Differences between CVS and git branch/tag models: CVS allows a >> branch or tag to be created from arbitrary combinations of source >> revisions from multiple source branches. It even allows file >> revisions that were never contemporaneous to be added to a single >> branch/tag. Git, on the other hand, only allows the full source >> tree, as it existed at some instant in the history, to be branched >> or tagged as a unit. Moreover, the ancestry of a git revision makes >> implications about the contents of that revision. This difference >> means that it is fundamentally impossible to represent an arbitrary >> CVS history in a git repository 100% faithfully. >> > > Right, and omitting tags was in fact one of the "features" of fromcvs > that made us use it, because any tool that tries to convert tags will > explode on our CVS tree, for reasons explained in the above paragraph. > > We have also discussed this in more detail about three times before. > > Well, yes, but I have been wondering if this has to be an all or nothing deal. How many tags can we not tie to a known tree in git? My suspicion is we can probably identify most of them quite well. If we can that would be nice. cheers andrew -- 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: Peter Eisentraut on 13 May 2010 07:46 On tor, 2010-05-13 at 04:41 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Right, and omitting tags was in fact one of the "features" of fromcvs > > that made us use it, because any tool that tries to convert tags will > > explode on our CVS tree, for reasons explained in the above paragraph. > > > > We have also discussed this in more detail about three times before. > > Well, yes, but I have been wondering if this has to be an all or nothing > deal. How many tags can we not tie to a known tree in git? My suspicion > is we can probably identify most of them quite well. If we can that > would be nice. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-04/msg00036.php -- 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: Andrew Dunstan on 13 May 2010 08:54 Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tor, 2010-05-13 at 04:41 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>> Right, and omitting tags was in fact one of the "features" of fromcvs >>> that made us use it, because any tool that tries to convert tags will >>> explode on our CVS tree, for reasons explained in the above paragraph. >>> >>> We have also discussed this in more detail about three times before. >>> >> Well, yes, but I have been wondering if this has to be an all or nothing >> deal. How many tags can we not tie to a known tree in git? My suspicion >> is we can probably identify most of them quite well. If we can that >> would be nice. >> > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-04/msg00036.php > > Quite so. All the tags apparently causing problems are of no more than historical interest to us. But more recent tags, especially for currently maintained branches, are of interest. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: [HACKERS] Tags missing from GIT mirror? Next: multibyte charater set in levenshtein function |