Re: [PATCH 3/3] docs/cvs-migration: mention cvsimport caveats

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 23, 2016, 03:56 UTC
Message-ID: <20160923035601.f5czdieouzvm3ptz@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20160922131526.GB6320@thyrsus.com>

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:15:26AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net>:
> > Back when this guide was written, cvsimport was the only
> > game in town. These days it is probably not the best option.
> 
> It is absolutely not.  As I have tried to point out here before, it
> is *severely* broken in its processing of branchy CVS repositories.
> 
> Nobody wanted to hear that, but it's still true. Recommending it
> is irresponsible.

I think your points came across, and that is why we have the big warning in git-cvsimport in the first place. This is really just adding a pointer to that warning from another relevant location (that frankly, I didn't even know existed until fixing a nearby problem).

I _do_ think cvsimport, buggy as it may be, may still have some potential value over other solutions (if you have a simple history, and it is easier to install or run than the alternatives). But I converted all of my CVS history to git over ten years ago and have never looked back. I really don't know if that is the case or not.

So personally I have no objection if somebody wants to rewrite the gitcvs-migration page to discuss the other options more thoroughly, or warn more clearly about cvsimport's flaws. These patches were just "Jeez, we are not even warning people _at all_, so at the minimum we should do so". I am not qualified to write on the current state of the art in CVS importing.

-Peff