Re: CVS -> SVN -> Git

[sorry for jumping in so late, didn't read git@vger for a while]

Martin Langhoff wrote:

On 7/15/07, Eric S. Raymond [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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   / \