From: Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:55:28 GMT
Subject: Re: cvs2svn conversion directly to git ready for experimentation
Message-ID: <9e4733910708021655p34a72428gd0bd33a830faf127@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <65F1862F-4DF2-4A52-9FD5-20802AEACDAB@zib.de>

On 8/2/07, Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@zib.de> wrote:
> Right now, I'd prefer the import by parsecvs because of the
> simpler history. However, I don't know if I loose history
> information by doing so. I'd start by a run of cvs2svn to validate
> the overall structure of the CVS repository. Dealing with corruption
> in the CVS repository seems to be superior in cvs2svn. It reports
> errors when parsecvs just crashes.

Parsecvs silently throws away things that confuse it. cvs2svn is much
more careful about not losing track of anything. For example parsecvs
is unable to process Mozilla CVS and cvs2svn can. The branching in
Mozilla CVS is too complex for parsecvs to handle.

-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com