[ANN] mtn2git v0.1

Hi,

This is the result of various experiments I've been doing while trying to import mtn repositories into git. I've looked into other mtn2git scripts but none fitted my needs.

After some rfcs on git and monotone mailing lists it seems now the script is going in the right direction.

There are two modes:

== checkout ==

In this mode each revision is checked out and imported directly into git. This means it's 100% sure that the result would be an exact clone.

The disadvantage is that it's extremely slow (1 day for 25,000 commits).

== fast-import ==

This mode requires a few patches for git fast-import, it's very fast (40 min for 25,000 commits), but not 100% reliable yet.

There are also some missing features like branch creation and updates.

My plan is to keep these two modes in the code until fast-import method is reliable enough.

I've tried this with Pidgin's repository. The result is here: http://github.com/felipec/pidgin-clone

It would be interesting to do something similar with OE's repo. Any takers?

Comments and patches are welcome :)

"Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

mtn or mnt?

When you feel this script to be ready, could you add it to the
"Interaction with other Revision Control Systems" section on
  http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/InterfacesFrontendsAndTools
As far as I can see there ain't any Monotone to Git converter on this
list.

TIA

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:

monotone = mtn

Ok, done. I think it's ready if you can bare the slowness of the 'checkout' method. The only missing feature is tags, but should be easy to implement.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008, Felipe Contreras wrote:

Thanks.

My confusion resulted from the fact that 'monotone' has 'n' both
before and after 't'.
 

Thank you.

BTW. did you have any problems with (from what I understand) slightly different concept of branches between Monotone and Git?

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip/>

Monotone can have multiple heads in one single branch, but from what I understand that mostly happens locally (not on the published repo). Anyway, If that happens the commits are still there, just dangling temporarily in no branch.

There isn't much we can do for that situation, except maybe create branch_n or something. I don't think it's a big problem.

Hi,

Felipe Contreras wrote:

Uh.. no, I'd say quite the opposite: if multiple developers work on the same branch and do their commits, the first time both heads appear in the same branch on the same machine will be the public repository.

..for the mtn repo imported into git that is, right?

Regards

Markus Wanner (ne Schiltknecht)