Re: cvs2svn conversion directly to git ready for experimentation

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Aug 3, 2007, 04:03 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708030454200.14781@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <46a038f90708021608o21480074ybcfada767afc7b04@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Martin Langhoff wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On 8/3/07, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > cvsps is not a conversion tool at all, though it is used by other
> > conversion tools to generate the changesets.  It appears (I hope I am
> > not misinterpreting things) to emphasize speed and incremental
> > operation, for example attempting to make changesets consistent from one
> > run to the next, even if the CVS repository has been changed prudently
> > between runs.  cvsps does not appear to attempt to create atomic branch
> > and tag creation commits or handle CVS's special vendorbranch behavior.
> >  cvsps operates via the CVS protocol; you don't need filesystem access
> > to the CVS repository.
> 
> 100% in agreement. And though I can't claim to be happy with cvsps, in
> many scenarios it is mighty useful, in spite of its significant warts.
>  The "does incrementals" is hugely important these days, as lots of
> people use git to run "vendor branches" of upstream projects that use
> CVS.

Me too: 100% agreement. A couple of people seem to be content to proclaim that their incomplete solutions are better, but in the end of the day, they are as bad as the programs they purport to replace: incomplete.

For the moment, I help myself with tracking the different branches individually, but there, really, git-cvsimport is as good as the other "solutions", with the further advantage that they are actually hackable, and not closed to everybody outside a very small community.

So I look forward to testing cvs2svn(git-branch) this weekend.

Ciao, Dscho