Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
This article rather shows the opposite. If they had switched to SVN in 2007, they would have been in a far better position to switch to git now, both technically and socially.
Lessons from PostgreSQL's Git transition
Posted Oct 12, 2010 21:43 UTC (Tue) by knan (subscriber, #3940)
Posted Oct 12, 2010 21:45 UTC (Tue) by jberkus (subscriber, #55561)
a) If we had migrated to SVN in 2007, we'd probably wouldn't migrate to git or anything else until 2012, or later.
b) We'd as likely have gone to Monotone or Arch. And then we'd be in trouble now ... we'd end up supporting that project just so we could continue to use it.
c) I don't see any way in which we'd be "in a far better position to switch to git now, both technically and socially." SVN is just CVS++.
Posted Oct 12, 2010 23:08 UTC (Tue) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698)
That said, I don't think that using Subversion as an intermediate step for a few years would have helped that much.
It does sound, though, like you're trying to force Git to act like a centralized VCS. If that's really what you want, I don't think Git was the right choice.
Posted Oct 12, 2010 23:16 UTC (Tue) by daglwn (subscriber, #65432)
Posted Oct 13, 2010 2:42 UTC (Wed) by yarikoptic (subscriber, #36795)
on the other hand, git-svn is such a handy tool with its bidirectional flow, that it makes "transition" much easier, whenever people could develop entirely in git and commit back to SVN.
Altogether, I think that direct jump CVS -> GIT was the right route; it could be only better if done earlier ;)
Posted Oct 13, 2010 11:50 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
With Subversion you basically end up having to manage tags manually in some external document. For fun search the Subversion mailing lists: you will find numerous people explaining how convenient is the lack of tags!
Posted Oct 13, 2010 9:34 UTC (Wed) by cmot (guest, #53097)
Remember that a big chunk of the conversion was in the support infrastructure. Having to revamp the buildfarm etc. infrastructure twice wouldn't have helped.
(I don't know the situation in the pg universe, but in Debian, quite a few administrators of support infrastructure are not intimately involved in development, so they may not see the ideas behind a change that means quite a lot of work to them...)
Posted Oct 21, 2010 14:15 UTC (Thu) by jnareb (subscriber, #46500)
Unfortunately because of "branches are folders" idea, with non-enforced
convention for being in repository hierarchy, makes it easy to screw up
repository in bizzare ways... differently than CVS, but as badly.
Those mishandled SVN repositories are PITA to import to Git.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds