Bruce Stephens wrote: > Michael Haggerty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > >> (I've already made this offer [to cooperate in adding mtn support to >> cvs2svn] to Markus Schiltknecht but he doesn't seem interested.) > > I suspect because cvs2svn isn't incremental. So it's a way to do a > one-time conversion of a CVS repository, but many people really want > to do incremental conversions, following a CVS repository as it > changes.
That's right, cvs2svn doesn't do incremental conversions. > However, it clearly has a place. It's pretty fast, and as you say, > copes with all the horrors of CVS. > > And the new version does a decent conversion to at least git (which is > close enough to mercurial/monotone/etc.), though I think it creates > many unnecessary branches. (This is a specifically git thing, and I > guess is a matter of taste. I think cvs2svn is creating branches in > order to construct revisions corresponding to CVS tags. But then from > git's point of view the branch doesn't really need a name, since the > tag's pointing to it. So I think I'd leave off the branch.) > > [...] cvs2svn added the unnecessary branch names because of a bug in git-fast-import. I think that problem is fixed, but I haven't gotten around to changing cvs2svn. More interesting is whether the branches have to be created at all for CVS (non-branch) tags. Presumably people often tag a whole repository snapshot in CVS, in which case the original branch could be tagged rather than creating a synthetic branch only to tag it. I'm currently working on code to avoid unnecessary branches for git. (I don't know whether monotone makes the same distinction.) Michael _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
