-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 While brooding over FreeBSD's "wanted features ni a VCS" I found myself thinking about one of the few we do not have "real" support no the mainline yet: FeatureCVSExport. I also talked quite a bit about it with a friend of mine and he told me that probably that "wanted" CVSExport feature doesn't necessarily mean "every single revision should be also on CVS as accurate as possible", as CVS would be used only during migration anyway, and would probably be considered as "legacy support" anyway. I thought of a quick&dirty way to export a linear CVS history out of a (possibly very active and thus containing often various heads) branch:
- - at one point in time the branch is merged and a revision A gets committed as version 1.123 - - on every received revision B a commit-hook gets called that commits it to CVS if and only if B is a strict descendant of A This simple rule should extract a single linear history out for a complex one, with the one limitation that it would represent only a single line's commits 1:1 and should then contain "all the others" using a summary of log messages. Example given: A: Initial revision A1 son of A: added nifty feature. A2 son of A1: corrected nasty bugs. B1 son of A: updated Italian translation. B2 son of B1: fixed a few translation bugs. C son of (A2,B2): merge. Imagining their commit (or, better put: receive) time on the central server is the one stated in the example (A, A1, A2, B1, B2, C) this would (should) produce on CVS the following history: 1.123: (A) Initial revision. 1.124: (A1) added nifty feature. 1.125: (2) corrected nasty bugs. B1 not committed because not son of latest committed (A2) B2 not committed because not son of latest committed (A2) 1.126: (B1) updated Italian translation. (B2) fixed a few translation bugs (C) merge If the multiple-heads states are not very long (and everyone good interests is in keeping them short, unless they're doing one of those rare "revolutions in the source code") the CVS final tree doesn't seem very unreasonable to me. What do you think? (then again, maybe current work by Christof already does this and much more, in fact I didn't study it properly yet...) - -- Lapo Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (OpenPGP & X.509) www.lapo.it (Jabber, ICQ, MSN) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJFJ68xAAoJELBiMTth2oCDsnAQALAXCOsdZflzxKDqPBiYWkOM 6FHeJANTOFSQVrF6NGjwVaJ1wIKed4eTDwcudMZ45shFxuQr232Hq2Pq438Bkwi1 u4rbWDxn1ln3X9BZLkmz7T1NauJJzCW0FuAmHA/Vte2JJGUPGWY9HGdnrYLKh71e F5wQHGzSC6zizqK3Nt/WDc5KfKJ75a69RviipHzYpn9ijrJJEgEcHgLLFkkuw2jZ HyyvZLA0+rw6AuO6hZUpfr5PFaanADddTYxzKIhvbvrA29x5Oe0bICqBqfe9uNU7 Z+3lE1nNMrflno3Z2lifgq7g5vGZJEDADlSUUHKjQodD9+alInCwKc8T80RT6pvJ FjOTDfaCxbsbT1sIhCxOb7bqFOZobVzMhBFV5jpCPmp4sZ8Vw1GWrBBuNU9e/Xv/ c/wvfpq7PT/cX3/eHF4FktAP3Tm/xMw0P2AHqsMuTSxzHbNVV4U1XdgKJTbXIYdh VmtETsW4ncFKvK0zEleTZ1iuaxw0WIFMzbqufkJXkFscqPbvrm/Sh/X/6OT0LnHI 2p5WWjmWQJ8PFhUuz28xt2dspoqIiwDBN7WFzTu/evuox57HIGTBhmhb8mbIJZdR 4qI8+u6k+aZjsY5RAWXTSYSIIpTvD6/s3/Z4E80oKa2EkNkXraZcruyeLbwNyoDv zYanChwBpMGRwvS/uuQI =Ri2o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
