Re: [SPAM] Re: GIT mirror not updating - Mailing list pgsql-www

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On Thursday 25 December 2008 01:47:49 Jeff Davis wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 19:40 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>> I hacked cvsps a little bit, to move the first commit on the branch
>>>> right after the correct branch point, before writing the output.
>>>> This is
>>>> a hack, but seems to work at least for the PG repository.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if we want to run a hacked version of cvsps. But then
>>>> again, the current conversion isn't exactly error-free either, and
>>>> we're
>>>> missing tags...
>>> Do you think this hack (or at least a problem report) would be accepted
>>> upstream by the git community?
>>
>> cvsps is not part of git.  It's a separate package, that has been
>> unmaintained for a great while, and there are already some forks out
>> there.  Which is part of the problem, overall ...
> 
> Yep. The git people are certainly aware of the problem, there's plenty
> of discussion about it on the mailing lists. I don't know if this
> particular hack has been proposed before, I don't think I saw anything
> identical in the mailing lists, though people have posted cvsps hacks to
> fix it before.
> 
> Another problem with git-cvsimport is that only branches that have had
> any commits to them show up in the GIT repository. This hack won't fix
> that. If cvsps injected a dummy "branch commit" at the right place,
> instead of the reordering that my hack does, that might be fixed too.

Do we *have* any branches that have had no commits? And in this case, do
we *care* that they don't show up? I assume they will show up as soon as
we get the first commit?



> What are we going to do about this? I have the feeling that I have the
> greatest itch to get the repository fixed. I propose that I will try
> that dummy "branch commit" hack in cvsps, and if it works out, create a
> new GIT repository using that. That would replace the current
> repository, which means that people working against that repository will
> need to use "git-fetch --force" to update their clones, and rebase their
> own branches. It would also be good to contribute the hack into upstream
> cvsps (whatever fork is considered upstream).

Sounds like a reasonable plan to me. We should be careful to test out
all parts before we do it, though, so users don't have to rebase more
than once!


> I'd like to move to git-cvsimport because:
> - it converts tags
> - I'm more familiar with it than fromcvs/togit.

Can't comment on this.


> However, if anyone else is willing to pick up the ball, I'll just shut
> up and be happy that something gets done.
> 
> One option is to just leave it as it is, but it's not nice that the
> history is repeated multiple times. The repository is big enough without
> that..

I'd really like to see us do something about it. I don't think just
leaving it as-is is a good solution.

//Magnus