>> The specific weird thing I've seen is an active file, on a branch,
>> that, when I run 'cvs status', shows its RCS file as in the Attic!
>>
>> Have you seen that?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Christopher Sean Morrison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I recall correctly, I believe that's a fi
If I recall correctly, I believe that's a file that has been added on
a branch but does not exist on HEAD.
On Aug 24, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Christopher Sean Morrison
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There's lots of things that can cause the acti
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Christopher Sean Morrison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's lots of things that can cause the active and attic files problem,
> both valid and invalid iirc. Aside from folks manually messing with files
> in the cvsroot (which is probably the *most* common cause)
On Aug 24, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
>> There were a couple other bugs we found in the way cvs2svn was
>> dealing with
>> old revisions that were both active and in the attic as well as
>> entire
>> deletion trees in the attic (which modern cvs doesn't do any
>> more). Since
>
>
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Christopher Sean Morrison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
...
> Thanks, Tom. I actually worked with one of the cvs2svn devs -- Michael
> Haggerty -- after our migration was completed and we investigated some of
> the is
On Aug 22, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
> Sean, I appreciate your documentation of the conversion of cvs to svn
> on the wiki. I've printed it out for reference for my next
> conversion. I'm sure the cvs2svn folks would like it. Ok if I send
> them a link?
Thanks, Tom. I actually wor
