Re: CVS -> SVN -> Git
- From
- Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker@cox.net>
- Date
- Jul 14, 2007, 17:32 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20070714173223.GA25574@pe.Belkin>
- In-Reply-To
- <4699034A.9090603@alum.mit.edu>
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 07:09:30PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> Martin Langhoff wrote: > > On 7/14/07, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > >> Incidentally, now that cvs2svn 2.0.0 is nearly out, I am thinking about > >> what it would take to write some other back ends for cvs2svn--turning > >> it, essentially, into cvs2xxx. Most of the work that cvs2svn does is > >> inferring the most plausible history of the repository from CVS's > >> sketchy, incomplete, idiomatic, and often corrupt data. This work > >> should also be useful for a cvs2git or cvs2hg or cvs2baz or ... > > > > Great to hear that. I'm game if we can do something in this direction > > - surely we can make it talk to fastimport ;-) > > We added some hooks to cvs2svn 2.0 to start working in this direction. > But I don't really know what information is needed for a git import. > One quick-and-dirty idea that I had was to have cvs2svn output > information compatible with cvsps's output, as I believe that several > tools rely on cvsps to do the dirty work and so could perhaps be > persuaded to use cvs2svn out of the box.
Depending on how difficult that is, it might be very useful, even if it's not the best way to interface with fast-import (which I suspect it's not). I, for one, would be interested to know how cvs2svn's output compared to CVSps's, especially w.r.t. detecting each branch's parent.
Perhaps one is always more correct than the other, but if not, I bet that seeing the differences using the same format would help to improve either one.
-chris