From: Martin Langhoff Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:38:20 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] archimport improvements Message-ID: <46a038f90511141438q1d85d429vedcf2a3b54d761e1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051112202150.GA2037@Muzzle> Eric, thanks for resending those so quickly. I think I'm going to sit on the 'overhaul of changeset application' patch a bit -- I'll test & ack your other patches for merge soonish but I want to review and test this one carefully. My main concern is that it seems to be calling tla get for each revision that it imports. For large trees, this is slow. I would be much happier with a fast Perl-based approach. Have you got a public repo with directory renames? Additional comments follow... On 11/13/05, Eric Wong wrote: > > > * Identify git branches as an Arch "archive,category<--branch>--version" > > > Anything less than that is ambiguous as far as history and patch > > > relationships go. > > > > These bug/sanity fixes are _good_. As you mention, I wasn't aware that > > patchnames could show up not having a --branch part. Tricky... > > Thanks. I got lazy one day and started ignoring --branch on some of my > personal projects to save my fingers :) Yup, makes sense. My concern now is that existing imports will change the name of branches and tags going forward. Can I ask you to resend that patch with the new branchname mangling as default, and the old one as optional? I know it'll force us to go back to using shellquote, but I am not too worried by that dependency at the moment. > > > Current weaknesses: > > > > > > * (Present in the original code as well). > > > The code still assumes that dates in commit logs can be trusted, which is > > > fine in most cases, but a wayward branch can screw up git-archimport and > > > cause parents to be missed. > > > > Fair enough. You mention an alternative strategy (tla ancestry) -- > > have you tried it at all? > > No, not yet. Also interested in this if you get around to it. cheers, martin