Re: cvs import

From: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>
Date: Sep 15, 2006, 07:37 UTC
Message-ID: <450A581E.2050509@bluegap.ch>
In-Reply-To: <20060914155003.GB9657@spearce.org>

Hi,

Shawn Pearce wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> I don't know how the Monotone guys feel about it but I think Git
> is happy with the data in any order, just so long as the dependency
> chains aren't fed out of order.  Which I think nearly all changeset
> based SCMs would have an issue with.  So we should be just fine
> with the current chronological order produced by cvs2svn.

I'd vote for splitting into file data (and delta / patches) import and metadata import (author, changelog, DAG).

Monotone would be happiest if the file data were sent one file after another and (inside each file) in the order of each file's single history. That guarantees good import performance for monotone. I imagine it's about the same for git. And if you have to somehow cache the files anyway, subversion will benefit, too. (Well, at least the cache will thank us with good performance).

After all file data has been delivered, the metadata can be delivered. As neigther monotone nor git care much if they are chronological across branches, I'd vote for doing it that way.

Regards

Markus