| |||||||||||||
Lessons from PostgreSQL's Git transitionLessons from PostgreSQL's Git transitionPosted Oct 13, 2010 15:00 UTC (Wed) by alvherre (subscriber, #18730)In reply to: Lessons from PostgreSQL's Git transition by lmb Parent article: Lessons from PostgreSQL's Git transition
But from what I read here, the main point of contention was not the cvs2git conversion (which always is trouble, since CVS just doesn't have all the data one would like - if it did, it wouldn't suck so much), but the processes etc surrounding it afterward. The processes were difficult, but the actual CVS-to-git conversion was pretty problematic too, and required quite a bit of tweaking of the CVS repository (see this mailing list message for the details) and help from the cvs2svn developers. Switching to a distributed VCS, and then rejecting one or two of the main aspects - distributed development and merge capabilities - to restrict it to CVS-like work flows seems somewhat weird, and I'm not surprised that such an attitude carries with it a lot of self-fulfilling prophecies. We've already switched. We're not going back. As people said above repeatedly, changes in workflow will come in time.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||