On 8/2/07, Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@xxxxxx> wrote: > Right now, I'd prefer the import by parsecvs because of the > simpler history. However, I don't know if I loose history > information by doing so. I'd start by a run of cvs2svn to validate > the overall structure of the CVS repository. Dealing with corruption > in the CVS repository seems to be superior in cvs2svn. It reports > errors when parsecvs just crashes. Parsecvs silently throws away things that confuse it. cvs2svn is much more careful about not losing track of anything. For example parsecvs is unable to process Mozilla CVS and cvs2svn can. The branching in Mozilla CVS is too complex for parsecvs to handle. -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx - 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
