On 9/14/06, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But aside from this point, I think an intrinsic part of implementing incremental conversion is "convert the subsequent changes to the CVS repository *subject to the constraints* imposed by decisions made in earlier conversion runs. And the real trick is that things can be done in CVS (e.g., line-end changes, manual copying of files in the repo) that (a) are unversioned and (b) have retroactive effects that go arbitrarily far back in time. This is the reason that I am pessimistic that incremental conversion will ever work robustly.
We don't need really robust incremental conversion. It just needs to work most of the time. Incremental conversion is usually used to track the main CVS repo with the new tool while people decide if they like the new tool. Commits will still flow to the CVS repo and get incrementally copied to the new tool so that it tracks CVS in close to real time. If the increment import messes up you can always redo a full import, but a full Mozilla import takes about 2 hours with the git tools. I would always do a full import on the day of the actual cut over. -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html