Re: Proposal for more reliable git mirroring

[Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost>]

On 03/01/2014 19:24, Jeff Rizzo wrote:
> I realize not everyone is onboard with the idea of moving towards
> using git

This is true, I for one, would rather move towards more suited to our 
workflow and ideals, namely fossil.

> In order to create repos which maintain longer-term value, I propose
> the following:  editing the CVS post-commit hook on cvs.netbsd.org to
> create a git commit for every CVS commit which comes in for one of the
> supported code bases, and commit it to an existing git repo (which
> would be created based on joerg's repo-conversion).  This would
> address several concerns:
>
>  - the repo would always be up-to-date, because every time a CVS
> commit happens, a corresponding git commit happens

What happens if the git repo goes offline? Would it reject the cvs 
commit (bad), lose the git commit (worse, rebase required again?) or 
store it locally until it comes back up?

>  - interested parties would gain more experience working with the
> NetBSD code using git.  This includes, "what do we do in cases where
> we would normally use 'cvs admin' to fix the repo?"

I fail to see how this improves the current situation we have on github.

> [1] there is a git mirror of src and pkgsrc which is kept reasonably
> up-to-date by joerg, but because it is converted anew every time,
> whenever someone uses "cvs admin", they potentially change the SHA-1
> of old commits - which makes the git mirror nearly useless (at least
> for some uses).

From memory, Joerg maintains the git repo from the fossil one which 
doesn't suffer from this (Joerg, please correct me if I'm wrong).
If so, why place this extra burden on a git deficiency?

Thanks

Roy