On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:04:11PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > John Keeping <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > git-cvsimport relies on version 2 of cvsps and does not work with the > > new version 3. Since cvsps 3.x does not currently work as well as > > version 2 for incremental import, document this fact. > > > > Specifically, there is no way to make new git-cvsimport that supports > > cvsps 3.x and have a seamless transition for existing users since cvsps > > 3.x needs a time from which to continue importing and git-cvsimport does > > not save the time of the last import or import into a specific namespace > > so there is no safe way to calculate the time of the last import. > > Isn't the whole "and git-cvsimport does not save the time..." part > something that can be fixed in the new cvsimport that reads the > output from cvsps3? Yes it can be fixed there (and I have patches to do that) - my argument here is that there cannot be a seamless upgrade for people who are currently using git-cvsimport incrementally. If you don't have that file then how do you create it to reflect the current state of your repository? > To me, it sounds more like > > cvsps2 + cvsimport has an unfixable bugs and there have been an > effort to rewrite cvsps2 from scratch. The resulting cvsp3 > currently is unusable with cvsimport, especially when importing > the history incrementally, and it isn't expected that it will > ever be usable with cvsimport again. cvsps3 isn't a re-write, it's cvsps2 with a lot of things ripped out and a fast-export mode added. And in fast-export mode it cannot inspect the Git repository in the same way that git-cvsimport does. > There are other tools that analyse the original history better > and emits more correct output when used to convert the whole > history, and hopefully cvsps3 + fast-import would become one of > them. Suggest users to use them instead of cvsimport when they > are not doing an incremental import. Yes. The consensus seems to be that cvs2git is the most correct. > By the way, do we want to make any recommendation to the distro > folks which cvsps they should ship? It appears that not shipping > cvsps2 would be a major regression if cvsps3 does not plan to > support incrementals, so shipping both might be the safest way for > them to support their users with different needs. I agree. cvsps is only one binary and a man page so I don't think it would be too hard to ship both. John -- 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