On 12/21/2012 11:44 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> If you haven't yet seen it, there is a writeup of the algorithm used by >> cvs2git to infer the history of a CVS repository [1]. If your goal is >> to make cvsps more robust, you might want to consider the ideas >> described there. > > I shall do so. Their design ideas may well be interesting, even though I > don't trust their code. I've seem cvs2svn drop far too many weird artifacts > and just plain broken commits in the back history of Subversion repositories. > I don't know if this is due to design problems, implementation bugs, or both. If you have seen any problems with cvs2svn/cvs2git, please file bug reports. In the past years there have been very few valid bugs reported. We very often find that artifacts that users thought were bugs are in fact intentional workarounds required to make the contents of branches and tags in the target VCS agree with those in the CVS repository. Perhaps your experience is with an older version of cvs2svn? If not, please be specific rather than just making complaints that are too vague to be rebutted or fixed (whichever is appropriate). I put a *lot* of effort into getting cvs2svn to run correctly, and I take bug reports very seriously. Michael (the cvs2svn maintainer) -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ -- 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