[sorry for jumping in so late, didn't read git@vger for a while]
Martin Langhoff wrote:
On 7/15/07, Eric S. Raymond <esr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not quite. I'm suggesting it's an appropriate lingua franca for
centralized
VCSes with branching, e.g. everything pre-Arch.
I do not think Eric is right here. You will allways lose information when converting CVS to svn, and if it is just the uncertainty, the non-atomicity. This is also information (hidden one, though).
That's a huge goal that gets in the way of waht we want to do here: we
are trying to save time, not embark on some huge mission.
cvs2svn has all the "wtf-did-cvs-mean-by-that" algorithms that are
very hard to write and maintain, and it seems to be the best one at
that. Of course, it also writes SVN repos -- but I'm sure that's the
easiest part.
True. However, cvs2svn has many assumptions (or at least has had when I last checked) which are targeted to svn, and unsuitable for a generic system (tags + branches).
We don't need no meta VCS for any of this.
Yes. I've already done what people want, it is not called cvs2xxx, but fromcvs [1]. I don't think it is necessary to define an output format. Of course, that's possible, but limiting yourself to a file format means you're losing flexibility, which is needed for efficient, correct and fast repository conversion.
cheers
simon
[1] http://ww2.fs.ei.tum.de/~corecode/hg/fromcvs/
--
Serve - BSD +++ RENT this banner advert +++ ASCII Ribbon /"\
Work - Mac +++ space for low €€€ NOW!1 +++ Campaign \ /
Party Enjoy Relax | http://dragonflybsd.org Against HTML \
Dude 2c 2 the max ! http://golden-apple.biz Mail + News / \
-
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
