From: Ping Yin Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:48:06 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] cvsps/cvsimport: fix branch point calculation and broken branch imports Message-ID: <46dff0320804270048h6938b8c9scdc1f3e922e41231@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <46dff0320804270038t651d94d4t3c63fe0cb5240e0d@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Ping Yin wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Ping Yin wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > > Ping Yin wrote: > > > > These days i tried to convert the cvs repository into git. I really > > > > want the conversion to be as accurate as possible. However, the cvs > > > > repository has been tagged in a very bad style which makes > > > > git-cvsimport or cvsps not work well. > > > > > > > > cvs2git sounds to be the right tool i should try. Unfortualely, i > > > > can't touch the cvs repository directly. So is it possible to use > > > > cvs2git in the remote host instead of the host of the cvs repository > > > > just as git-cvsimport does? Yes, i know it can't now. I just wonder > > > > whether it is possible to implement. > > > > > > cvs2svn/cvs2git itself can't work with remote repositories. It would be > > > enough if you could just get a copy of the repository; obviously you > > > don't need to use the original. > > > > > > If you can't get a copy of the CVS repository directly, you might be > > > able to recreate it indirectly via information read over the CVS > > > protocol using a tool like CVSsuck [1,2]. I have no experience with > > > CVSsuck, so if you try it out, please let us know whether you were > > > successful. > > > > > > > THX. If i try out cvssuck, i will let you know. > > > > Great, i succeed. And the result is exactly what i want! > Not exactly, for my another conversion. $ git log --pretty=online --name-status x64_UI_071204 724eb47 \ This commit was manufactured by cvs2svn to create tag 'x64_UI_071204'. 9362987 add support of writing cookies of 'fromid'; M logqueue.c M ui.c M ui.h Should we avoid recording the commit 724eb47 since it is the same with commit 9362987 (no content change)？ -- Ping Yin