Re: Fwd: Fwd: git cvsimport implications

On 05/17/2013 06:10 PM, Eugene Sajine wrote:

MIchael, sorry for dup - didn't press reply all for the first one.

quoted

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.

1. You are making assumptions and conclusions that have no grounds.
I asked for help understanding what are the problems of cvsimport.
Never i said i'm not willing use cvs2git. Never i said I'm happy to have
problems in my git repos. So, this "low standard" punch was... not necessary.

I didn't mean to be offensive.  I meant it more in the sense of "you
deserve to expect more from your software".

2. I started to use cvsimport because it was the tool *provided with
git* about three years ago.
By that time i didn't find any better and simpler tool to use and
those implications were uknown for me,
they were brought up to my attention just recently.
CVS is not good for branches, so most of our projects didn't have any
cvs branches.
So for majority of those it seems that the cvsimport did it's job just fine.
Now we are going to try to migrate some projects that are using CVS
branches heavily.
That concerns me, so i'm looking for better tool.

The Git test suite (tests t/t960?-*.sh) demonstrates some of the known
problems with cvsimport, and those failures are summarized in the
manpage for git-cvsimport(1).  Not all of the problems are related to
branches and tags.  There might be more problems; I simply documented a
few that I found relatively quickly then I stopped looking.

3. Is there a way to have the whole plumbing with the
blobfiles and dumpfiles and consequent git fast-import wrapped into
nice command like:

git cvsimport -C path/to/my/new/shiny/gitrepo

Or are there any particular reasons why end user must deal with blob
and dump files and do fast-import afterwards?

There are benefits to the split blobfile/dumpfile approach for some
users, so I wouldn't want to get rid of that possibility.  But there's
no reason I wouldn't accept a patch that provides an option to convert
as you describe.  Alternately, it would take only a few lines of script
to automate it yourself.

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/