Re: git-cvsimport-3 and incremental imports

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 21, 2013, 00:01 UTC
Message-ID: <7vehhfjteu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130120233422.GB3474@elie.Belkin>

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

Show 21 quoted lines

> Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
>> You get to integrate this.  I think the transition strategy Junio
>> has chosen is seriously mistaken, leading to unnecessary grief for users
>> who will be fooled into thinking it's OK to still use cvsps-2.x.
>
> So our choices are:
>
>  a. support current users, offend ESR, don't benefit from ESR
>     improvements
>
>  b. give up on current users, please ESR, benefit from ESR
>     improvements
>
>  c. some option yet undiscovered
>
> In that case, (c) sounds like our best bet.  Do I understand
> correctly?
>
> Sigh,
> Jonathan

Isn't (c) is to just build on cvsimport-2 and cvsimport-3 combo?

If Eric does not want to get involved in cvsimport-2 (and cvsps2), that is perfectly fine. We have the beginning of cvsimport-3 code that was released with Sign-off, and as long as cvsps3 produces a "more corrrect" output stream (either traditional cvsps2 style or as a fast-import stream) than cvsps2 conversion describes, cvsimport-3 can get the full benefit of his work, no?

I do not think that Eric will be the only person who understands cvsps3 output who can fix bugs that may potentially still exist in cvsimport-3 code [*1*].

We live in real world, and distro inertia makes it likely that a new version of git that does not work for people who have been happy with cvsps2 will get resistance from them, when they do not trust the 0.x releases of a new piece of software "cvsps3" that happens to have a name similar to what they have been shipping, i.e. "cvsps2". Shipping such a crippled Git will not be an effective way to promote adoption of "cvsps3".

[Footnote]

*1* This of course assumes Eric's two major claims are true, that is, (1) cvsimport-3 is already mature and better than cvsimport-2, and (2) the code is so simple that it does not even need its own tests as long as the front-end conversion that happens at the cvsps3 end is tested well. Choosing b. will have to assume them to be true anyway, so I do not think it is a big loss to rely on the same assumptions and choose b. from our point of view.