Re: Fwd: git cvsimport implications
- From
Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 17, 2013, 13:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACPiFCLLw+m=2u8Dsw8u0cU9xrncZ0DwZ9SwOpONWydzCY2t0Q@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20130517133457.GA11496@inner.h.apk.li>
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Andreas Krey <a.krey@gmx.de> wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:14:58 +0000, Michael Haggerty wrote: > ... >> We both know that the CVS history omits important data, and that the >> history is mutable, etc. So there are lots of hypothetical histories >> that do not contradict CVS. But some things are recorded unambiguously >> in the CVS history, like >> >> * The contents at any tag or the tip of any branch (i.e., what is in the >> working tree when you check it out). > > Except that the tags/branches may be made in a way that can't > be mapped onto any commit/point of history otherwise exported, > with branches that are done on parts of the trees first, or > likewise tags.
Yeah, that's what I remember too. It is perfectly fine in CVS to add a tag to a file at a much later date than the rest of the tree. And it happened too ("oh, I didn't have directory support/some-os checked out when I tagged the release yesterday! let me check it out and add the tag, nevermind that the branch has moved forward in the interim...").
I would add the long history of "cvs repository manipulation". Bad, ugly stuff, but it happened in every major project I've seen. Mozilla, X.org, etc.
TBH I am very glad that Michael cares deeply about the correctness, and it leads to a much better tool. No doubt.
When discussing it with end users, I do think we have to be honest and say that there's a fair chance that the output will not be perfect... because what is in CVS is rather imperfect when you look at it closely (which users aren't usually doing).
cheers,
m -- martin.langhoff@gmail.com - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff