Re: cvsps, parsecvs, svn2git and the CVS exporter mess

> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>:
>> There are two good reasons that the output is written to two separate files:
> 
> Those are good reasons to write to a pair of tempfiles, and I was able
> to deduce in advance most of what your explanation would be from the
> bare fact that you did it that way.
> 
> They are *not* good reasons for having an interface that exposes this
> implementation detail to the caller - that choice I consider a failure
> of interface-design judgment.  But I know how to fix this in a simple and
> backward-compatible way, and will do so when I have time to write you
> a patch.  Next week or the week after, most likely.
> 
> Also, the cvs2git manual page is still rather half-baked and careless,
> with several fossil references to cvs2svn that shouldn't be there and
> obviously incomplete feature coverage. Fixing these bugs is also on my
> to-do list for sometime this month.
> 
> I'd be willing to put in this work anyway, but it still in the back of
> my mind that if cvs2git wins the test-suite competition I might
> officially end-of-life both cvsps and parsecvs.  One of the features
> of the new git-cvsimport is direct support for using cvs2git as a
> conversion engine.
> 
>> A potentially bigger problem is that if you want to handle such
>> blob/dump output, you have to deal with git-fast-import format's "blob"
>> command as opposed to only handling inline blobs.
> 
> Not a problem.  All of the main potential consumers for this output,
> including reposurgeon, handle the blob command just fine.