On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:44:24PM -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> > a more reliable way would be probably doing a "naive" cvs2svn conversion
>> > (which does not consider server-side moves) with a current v
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 18:22, Ian Monroe wrote:
> So kdelibs and kdebase are switching to Git, probably not Dec 20/21 as
> was previously thought, but at the release of 4.6.0.
>
> Whether its next week or next month though, its pretty soon. :)
>
> I have three work-in-progress repos, the first tw
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:44:24PM -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > a more reliable way would be probably doing a "naive" cvs2svn conversion
> > (which does not consider server-side moves) with a current version and
> > then fix up the history (remove the ghost files) w
Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> a more reliable way would be probably doing a "naive" cvs2svn conversion
> (which does not consider server-side moves) with a current version and
> then fix up the history (remove the ghost files) with svn2git min
> revision rules.
How do we get access to the old CVS re
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 02:26, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 06:22:38PM -0600, Ian Monroe wrote:
>> The branches (especially the early CVS ones) are a bit confused, this
>> is a work-in-progress.
>
>> cvs2svn has some known issues I think,
>>
> that's to put it mildly. one co
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 06:22:38PM -0600, Ian Monroe wrote:
> The branches (especially the early CVS ones) are a bit confused, this
> is a work-in-progress.
> cvs2svn has some known issues I think,
>
that's to put it mildly. one could also say that it monumentally screwed
up entire branches, prob
