Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com>: > Indeed. Ideally the tree objects in the git conversion should have > exactly the same contents as SVN commits, and so be shared with the > git-svn history to reduce the eventual repository size (except where there > are defects in the git-svn history, or the git conversion fixes up cvs2svn > artifacts and so some old revisions end up more accurately reflecting old > history than the SVN repository does).
I don't think sharing with the git-svn history will be possible. git-svn is a terrible whole-history converter; the odds of getting the same topology out of reposurgeon are basically nil, and the problem of matching different topologies is quite hard. I'll be frank; if it's doable at all (which I doubt) I think this is a *really bad idea* - a complexity hairball with few or no actual benefits. I'm not willing to even try for it unless demand from the development group is overwhelming and you're able to wait a long, long time for results. > One particular case: we have well-maintained .gitignore files, that might > even be more accurate than the svn:ignore properties, and I think the > conversion should keep those and disable all smart ignore handling (just > discard svn:ignore properties, and pass through the existing .gitignore > files (and .cvsignore files)). This is also not currently possible, but it's not an intrinsically bad idea. Giving reposurgeon an option to to support it wouldn't be very difficult. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>