From: Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:04:54 GMT
Subject: Re: I have end-of-lifed cvsps
Message-ID: <20131212230454.GA20054@thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACPiFCJDP6OVju2xzm2NWR5gc=bZDeNmXsD_MFH2mgHQru_u6Q@mail.gmail.com>

Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> >>  - regardless of commit ids, do you synthesize an artificial commit?
> >> How do you define parenthood for that artificial commit?
> >
> > Because tagging is never used to deduce changesets, the case does not arise.
> 
> So if a branch has a nonsensical branching point, or a tag is
> nonsensical, is it ignored and not imported?

I don't know what happens when identically-named tags point at changes that
resolve into two different commits.  I will figure that out and document it.

There's evidence, in the form of some code that is #ifdefed out, that 
Keith considered trying to make synthetic commits from tag cliques. But
abandoned the idea because he couldn't figure out how to assign such
cliques to a branch.

I'm not sure what counts as a nonsensical branching point. I do know that
Keith left this rather cryptic note in a REAME:

	Disjoint branch resolution. Branches occurring in a subset of the
	files are not correctly resolved; instead, an entirely disjoint
	history will be created containing the branch revisions and all
	parents back to the root. I'm not sure how to fix this; it seems
	to implicitly assume there will be only a single place to attach as
	branch parent, which may not be the case. In any case, the right
	revision will have a superset of the revisions present in the
	original branch parent; perhaps that will suffice.

-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>