From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 16:53:58 GMT
Subject: Re: gitweb wishlist
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0505240943080.2307@ppc970.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0505240929051.2307@ppc970.osdl.org>



On Tue, 24 May 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> Wait another few minutes and I'll commit my fix the problem with cvsps
> branch handling (and I need to escape '$' in <<EOFMSG handling).

Ok, committed. It takes a few minutes for the mirroring to pick it up, but 
you should soon see a commit that says

    cvs2git: escape <<EOF messages, and work around cvsps branch handling
    
    This escapes '$' characters in <<-handling, and gives preference to
    the new branch when cvsps incorrectly reports a commit as originating
    on an old branch.

and once you do, you should have something that works. 

Of course, I've still only tested it on syslinux, but it converts a 
syslinux CVS repo in 64 seconds for me, and now the result really _does_ 
look correct at least superficially. Ie I can see 1029 commits on HEAD, 
which is exactly what cvsps also reports.

And I see four different branches (HEAD is called "master" as per the 
normal naming):

	torvalds@ppc970:~/src/osscvs/syslinux> ll .git/refs/heads/
	total 16K
	-rw-rw-r--  1 torvalds torvalds 41 May 24 09:36 branch-1_xx
	-rw-rw-r--  1 torvalds torvalds 41 May 24 09:37 master
	-rw-rw-r--  1 torvalds torvalds 41 May 24 09:36 syslinux
	-rw-rw-r--  1 torvalds torvalds 41 May 24 09:36 syslinux-1_6x-1

and doing a 

	git-rev-tree branch-1_xx master syslinux syslinux-1_6x-1 | wc -l

reports 1046 total revisions (which also matches cvsps exactly).

So things look ok, but I haven't actually checked the _contents_ of the
tree, except to look that the pathces that "git-whatchanged -p" reports
look sane.

There's two remaining bad things:

 - name translation doesn't exist (so all of Peters changesets get 
   reported as author "hpa <hpa>")

 - the commit time will be the conversion time, not the original commit 
   time (but the _author_ time will be correct). I suspect that for a 
   conversion like this, we really should add support for GIT_COMMIT_DATE. 

   That would also make the archive conversion 100% reproducible, ie
   everybody should get the exact same objects (and thus the exact same
   SHA1 values) which is good.

I'll add the GIT_COMMIT_DATE thing, but the name translation is for 
somebody else.

		Linus