Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
>The svn converter actually compares the common parts of the
>repositores to find anomalies, with manually inserted clearingpoints
>for those anomalies I have inspected and reacted on. I hope you have
>a similar system for the git repository
Actually, what happened was that I did a clean *initial* import from
your SVN repository, so anything you already fixed, is in my intial git
import. After that, I proceded with imports from CVS, but only from
their respective branches. I.e. I never pickup information from a
CVS repository that refers to anything older than that CVS repository is
valid for (e.g. I do not query a CVS repository for 7.6 for information
other than versions 7.5 and 7.6, anything pertaining to 7.3 and 7.4 is
obtained from the 7.4 repository).
> to scrutinize the information
>received from the CVS repositores (which can not be trusted as a
>matter of prinicple).
Erm. Isn't it such that any checkout done from CVS from the (at the
time) correct repository is the exact thing we're trying to replicate?
>Another repository could theoretically lead to new anomalies which
>would affect the existing clearingpoint, but if no changes are done
>directly in the repository it _should_ not happen.
My point exactly.
>Besides, making a new CVS repository would remove the blowtorch to
>actually go through with the switch, meaning it will not happen for
>another 2 years again...
I do think that everyone's ready for change now, so that will not be
delayed by that long anymore.
--
Sincerely,
Stephen R. van den Berg.
Father's Day Special at the local clinic -- Vasectomy!
