From: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:02:07 GMT
Subject: Re: CVS -> SVN -> Git
Message-ID: <469F52BF.8050300@bluegap.ch>
In-Reply-To: <46a038f90707151805j454b57fbvb4d7ed526e1e64ce@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Martin Langhoff wrote:
> cvs2svn has all the "wtf-did-cvs-mean-by-that" algorithms that are
> very hard to write and maintain, and it seems to be the best one at
> that. Of course, it also writes SVN repos -- but I'm sure that's the
> easiest part.
> 
>     We don't need no meta VCS for any of this.

Sure, we certainly need a meta format of some sort (not a full blown 
VCS, agreed, but somehow we need to represent commits, tags and 
branches). And IMO, the subversion based format is not a good one, 
because it treats branches and tags very different from most other 
systems (and from what it should be from a users perspective: an atomic 
operation).

We (Michael, Oswald and me) have discussed joining efforts of my cvs to 
monotone converter, but I quickly dropped that idea because the cvs2svn 
converter is too subversion specific. If cvs2svn wants to become a 
universal cvs importer, it needs to get rid of those assumptions (and do 
more work to unify tagging and branching).

Regards

Markus