Re: Fwd: git cvsimport implications

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 05/15/2013 08:03 PM, Eugene Sajine wrote:
> My primary goal was to understand better what are the real problems
> that we might have with the way we use git cvsimport, so I was not
> asking about the guarantee of the cvsimport to import things
> correctly, but if there is a guarantee the import will result in
> completely broken history.

So what are you going to do, use cvsimport whenever you cannot *prove*
that it is wrong?  You sure have low standards for your software.

The only *useful* guarantee is that software is *correct* under defined
circumstances.  I don't think anybody has gone to the trouble to figure
out when that claim can be made for cvsimport.

> If the cvsimport is that broken - is there any plan to fix it?

For one-time imports, the fix is to use a tool that is not broken, like
cvs2git.

Alternatively, Eric Raymond claims to have developed a new version of
cvsps that is not quite as broken as the old version.  Presumably
cvsimport would be not quite as broken if used with the new cvsps.

Michael

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]