Re: cvs import

From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sep 14, 2006, 05:02 UTC
Message-ID: <4508E26B.5000106@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9e4733910609132134j63857912keed6a42682f69d66@mail.gmail.com>

Jon Smirl wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On 9/14/06, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> But aside from this point, I think an intrinsic part of implementing
>> incremental conversion is "convert the subsequent changes to the CVS
>> repository *subject to the constraints* imposed by decisions made in
>> earlier conversion runs.  And the real trick is that things can be done
>> in CVS (e.g., line-end changes, manual copying of files in the repo)
>> that (a) are unversioned and (b) have retroactive effects that go
>> arbitrarily far back in time.  This is the reason that I am pessimistic
>> that incremental conversion will ever work robustly.
> 
> We don't need really robust incremental conversion. It just needs to
> work most of the time. Incremental conversion is usually used to track
> the main CVS repo with the new tool while people decide if they like
> the new tool. Commits will still flow to the CVS repo and get
> incrementally copied to the new tool so that it tracks CVS in close to
> real time.

I hadn't thought of the idea of using incremental conversion as an advertising method for switching SCM systems :-) But if changes flow back to CVS, doesn't this have to be pretty robust?

In our trial period, we simply did a single conversion to SVN and let people play with this test repository. When we decided to switch over we did another full conversion and simply discarded the changes that had been made in the test SVN repository.

The use cases that I had considered were:

1. For conversions that take days, one could do a full commit while
leaving CVS online, then take CVS offline and do only an incremental
conversion to reduce SCM downtime.  This is of course less of an issue
if you could bring the conversion time down to a couple hours for even
the largest CVS repos.

2. Long-term continuous mirroring (backwards and forwards) between CVS
and another SCM, to allow people to use their preferred tool.  (I
actually think that this is a silly idea, but some people seem to like it.)

For both of these applications, incremental conversion would have to be robust (for 1 it would at least have to give a clear indication of unrecoverable errors).

Michael