CVS history feels like an odd bar for cinnabar. The goal of cinnabar is to enable seamless integration between git and mercurial with reproducible, 1:1 commit mappings. Our canonical mercurial repositories don't have CVS history, so we shouldn't expect the cinnabar clones of those repositories to have CVS history either.
Really, we should think of gecko-dev as an entirely different tool that provides full history at the cost of being read-only with respect to our canonical repositories. Personally, I prefer to use a cinnabar clone for a first-class pull/push repo experience, and using searchfox whenever I want to see pre-2008 blame. bholley On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Muizelaar <jmuizel...@mozilla.com> wrote: > FWIW, https://github.com/jrmuizel/gecko-cinnabar doesn't have the CVS > history so is no better than https://github.com/mozilla/gecko. Having > a canonical repo that includes the CVS history will make the SHA's > incompatible with doing a direct conversion of hg which is a > disadvantage. I'm not sure what's more valuable. > > -Jeff > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 09/18/2017 01:16 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Andrew McCreight < > amccrei...@mozilla.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Kartikaya Gupta <kgu...@mozilla.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I've tried using cinnabar a couple of times now and the last time I > >>>> tried, this was the dealbreaker for me. My worfklow often involves > >>>> moving a branch from one machine to another and the extra hassle that > >>>> results from mismatched SHAs makes it much more complicated than it > >>>> needs to be. gecko-dev doesn't have this problem as it has a canonical > >>>> upstream that works much more like a regular git user expects. > >>>> > >>> For what it is worth, I regularly pull from one machine to another with > >>> git-cinnabar, and it works just fine without any problems from > mismatched > >>> SHAs. For me, the switch from a clone of gecko-dev to git-cinnabar has > >>> been > >>> totally transparent. > >>> > >> +1. The non-stable SHA problem was solved a long time ago. Same goes for > >> any big performance issues. In my experience, cinnabar is pretty darn > >> transparent. > >> > >> https://github.com/mozilla/gecko is effectively the canonical repo > people > >> are talking about. I sometimes pull that, but git-cinnabar is fast > enough > >> that it works fine to just clone the hg repo directly. If it weren't for > >> the occasional annoyance of mapping commits between local revs and > hg.m.o > >> links, I would basically forget that the core infrastructure is running > >> hg. > > > > That repo doesn't have the CVS history. :-( I realize that is fixable > with > > a local graft and a clone of gecko-dev, but a lot of blood and sweat went > > into making our current canonical git repo include the full CVS history > (I > > maintained it myself for ~3 years and a lot of people spent quite a bit > of > > time and energy to stand up the current infrastructure that maintains > > gecko-dev.) Would it be possible to base the canonical git-cinnabar > repo on > > https://github.com/jrmuizel/gecko-cinnhabar which does have the full CVS > > history? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dev-platform mailing list > > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
