Re: Fixing cvs2svn branchpoints

Joseph Myers : > Which mid-branch deletes? For the ones by accident (e.g. the deletions of > trunk), where the branch was recreated by copying from the pre-deletion > version of the same branch, nuking the deletes is clearly right. For the > ones where a branch was deleted then recreated as a

Re: Fixing cvs2svn branchpoints

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Joseph Myers : > > And here are corresponding lists of tags where the commit cvs2svn > > generated for the tag should be reparented. > > Make that issue 2, please. Done. > Also, open an issue 3 about how you want those > mid-branch deletes handled.

Re: Fixing cvs2svn branchpoints

Joseph Myers : > And here are corresponding lists of tags where the commit cvs2svn > generated for the tag should be reparented. Make that issue 2, please. Also, open an issue 3 about how you want those mid-branch deletes handled. I agree that the right thing is just to nuke them, but I have a

Re: Fixing cvs2svn branchpoints

And here are corresponding lists of tags where the commit cvs2svn generated for the tag should be reparented. The semantics are exactly the same as for branches (change the parent of that commit without changing the tree contents). In many but not all cases, the reparenting may result in the

Re: Fixing cvs2svn branchpoints

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Joseph Myers : > > Here are complete lists of reparentings I think should be done on the > > commits that start branches, along with my notes on branches with messy > > initial commits but where I don't think any reparenting should be done. > > The

Re: Fixing cvs2svn branchpoints

Joseph Myers : > Here are complete lists of reparentings I think should be done on the > commits that start branches, along with my notes on branches with messy > initial commits but where I don't think any reparenting should be done. > The REPARENT: lines have the meaning I described in >

Re: Fixing cvs2svn branchpoints

Here are complete lists of reparentings I think should be done on the commits that start branches, along with my notes on branches with messy initial commits but where I don't think any reparenting should be done. The REPARENT: lines have the meaning I described in

Fixing cvs2svn branchpoints

As mentioned at the Cauldron, I'm looking at finding better branchpoints for the cases in the GCC repository where cvs2svn messed up identifying the parent branch and commit on which a branch was based, so that affected branches can be reparented as part of moving to git, since messed-up branch