Hello Nathaniel, On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 01:32 -0700, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > I'm not really qualified to even judge whether this approach is good > or not. But maybe I could become more qualified, and everyone else > too, if you worked out what cvs2svn does to solve this problem, and > posted a description of that? (Perhaps with a comparison of what it > does differently, too.)
Well, I just followed the simplest path to get those branches connected. I'm quite sure my variant currently does not connect branches wrongly. If in doubt, it doesn't connect them. > I'm not suggesting this to just be annoying -- rather, because, that's > by far the most battle-hardened cvs parser freely available[1], and > this is the sort of nasty problem that just can't be solved except by > lots and lots of grunt labor, trying solutions, seeing how they fail, > improving the solutions, etc. It's just not the sort of question that > we really _can_ evaluate on the basis of a mailing list post :-(. So > we could either do that labor ourselves, or steal it from someone > who's already done it :-). Sure. I didn't mean to say my algorithm was better than cvs2svn's. It just worked for me (some times). And it was feasible to do in some days of after-work-hacking. Also I still think it's an improvment to at least try to connect branches than to reject connecting them per se. Regards Markus _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
