From: Simon 'corecode' Schubert Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:14:18 GMT Subject: Re: CVS -> SVN -> Git Message-ID: <469FB80A.8000001@fs.ei.tum.de> In-Reply-To: <46a038f90707151805j454b57fbvb4d7ed526e1e64ce@mail.gmail.com> [sorry for jumping in so late, didn't read git@vger for a while] Martin Langhoff wrote: > On 7/15/07, Eric S. Raymond wrote: >> Not quite. I'm suggesting it's an appropriate lingua franca for >> centralized >> VCSes with branching, e.g. everything pre-Arch. I do not think Eric is right here. You will allways lose information when converting CVS to svn, and if it is just the uncertainty, the non-atomicity. This is also information (hidden one, though). > That's a huge goal that gets in the way of waht we want to do here: we > are trying to save time, not embark on some huge mission. > > 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. True. However, cvs2svn has many assumptions (or at least has had when I last checked) which are targeted to svn, and unsuitable for a generic system (tags + branches). > We don't need no meta VCS for any of this. Yes. I've already done what people want, it is not called cvs2xxx, but fromcvs [1]. I don't think it is necessary to define an output format. Of course, that's possible, but limiting yourself to a file format means you're losing flexibility, which is needed for efficient, correct and fast repository conversion. cheers simon [1] http://ww2.fs.ei.tum.de/~corecode/hg/fromcvs/ -- Serve - BSD +++ RENT this banner advert +++ ASCII Ribbon /"\ Work - Mac +++ space for low €€€ NOW!1 +++ Campaign \ / Party Enjoy Relax | http://dragonflybsd.org Against HTML \ Dude 2c 2 the max ! http://golden-apple.biz Mail + News / \