On Thu, 2006-04-06 17:26:14 +0200, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Keith Packard wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 14:08 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > > But it seems it now starts to really consume memory: > > The question is whether it needs to be more efficient so that people can > > constantly convert repositories or whether moving the repository to a > > sufficiently large machine for the one-time conversion is 'good enough'. > > Keep in mind that there are many more valid uses for tracking a CVS > repository than to import it once. Even the most simplest usage case reveals this. (It's also what I'm about to do the the converted GCC repository.) Get the repo, locally track the changes (so the importet branches are all like "vendor branches") and do own work in local branches. I'll do this eg. to be able to easily re-diff patches, which I want to put into GIT, just because it's so much more convenient than SVN. However, this is only possible because I'm able to keep track of upstream SVN changes. They probably won't change their SCM again, just after they've introduced SVN. MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@xxxxxxxxxx . +49-172-7608481 _ O _ "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O für einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature