On Sun, 8 May 2016 at 16:33 Senthil Kumaran <sent...@uthcode.com> wrote:
> Hi Martin, Brett: > > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > >> $ git rev-list --count master >>> 489 >>> >>> I don’t know what the equivalent command in Mercurial is. Perhaps you >>> could clone the relevant branch to a fresh repository and check the >>> numerical revision number. >>> >> >> SO to the rescue (and Martin is right about how to figure it out): >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16672788/total-count-of-change-sets-for-mercurial-and-git >> >> Senthil has also suggested verifying the hashes of all the files in a >> repository that are not in .hg or .git directories. >> > > Are these validations enough for our purposes? > Don't know, but it's at least a start. > > Two files in the different version-control system can have same SHA and > same commit of commits, but have a possibility of changesets/diffs > associated with those commits different. I was thinking, how we should go > about with this when evaluating the existing git repo. > > When we do migration afresh using a tool like hg-git, we assume that this > verification step is asserted as part of unit tests of the tool. > That would be my hope. It obviously doesn't hurt to check, though, if it isn't too difficult. -Brett > > -- > Senthil > > >
_______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
