Elvis Pranskevichus <el@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Currently git-cvsimport tries to create tag objects directly via git-mktag
> in a very broken way, e.g the stuff it writes into the tagger field of
> the tag object doesn't really resemble the GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT. This makes
> gitweb and possibly other tools that try to interpret tag objects to be
> confused about tag date and authorship.
>
> Fix this by calling git-tag instead. This also has a nice side effect of
> not creating the tag object but only the lightweight tag as that's the only
> thing CVS has anyways.
>
> Signed-off-by: Elvis Pranskevichus <el@xxxxxxxxx>
This sounds very sane, although I have not thought through the
possible ramifications.
> git-cvsimport.perl | 26 ++------------------------
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/git-cvsimport.perl b/git-cvsimport.perl
> index f68afe7..d5ca66b 100755
> --- a/git-cvsimport.perl
> +++ b/git-cvsimport.perl
> @@ -771,31 +771,9 @@ sub commit {
> $xtag =~ s/\s+\*\*.*$//; # Remove stuff like ** INVALID ** and ** FUNKY **
> $xtag =~ tr/_/\./ if ( $opt_u );
> $xtag =~ s/[\/]/$opt_s/g;
> - ...
> +
> + system("git-tag $xtag $cid") == 0
> or die "Cannot create tag $xtag: $!\n";
> - ...
>
> print "Created tag '$xtag' on '$branch'\n" if $opt_v;
> }
> --
> 1.5.2
Other than that I would write the "system" in a slightly newer
style, i.e.
system('git-tag', $xtag, $cid)
I do not think of any obvious downside, either in the code nor
the change to use unannotated tag.
Anybody on the list see downsides with this?
-
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
