On 07/09/10 16:21, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 17:07, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 16:16, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If you want to try, and it doesn't take much time, go for it. I was
just
On 07/09/10 16:47, Tom Lane wrote:
Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com writes:
Personally, the idea of trying to use git-filter-branch to make what
cvs2git currently gives you more sensible scares me silly.
I'm not excited about it either --- but if Magnus wants to experiment,
no harm trying
On 07/09/10 18:16, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
What I'd like is for those commits to vanish from the git log entirely.
It seems to me that in your case such commits could be grafted over:
*---*---*---*
\
A---B---C---D
On 07/09/10 21:25, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 22:06, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
You're saying you don't require
On 07/09/10 23:15, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, why is this commit shown as being a predecessor of refs/tags/REL8_4_4
and not refs/tags/REL8_4_3? That's nothing to do with it.po, perhaps,
but it sure looks wrong. (Magnus, did you
On 07/09/10 23:20, Max Bowsher wrote:
On 07/09/10 23:15, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
BTW, why is this commit shown as being a predecessor of refs/tags/REL8_4_4
and not refs/tags/REL8_4_3? That's nothing to do with it.po, perhaps
On 07/09/10 23:34, Tom Lane wrote:
No doubt. However, the facts on the ground are that it.po is provably
not there in REL8_4_0, REL8_4_1, REL8_4_2, or REL8_4_3, and is there in
REL8_4_4, and that no commit on the branch touched it before 2010-05-13
(just before 8.4.4). I will be interested
On 08/09/10 00:47, Tom Lane wrote:
Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com writes:
And, I've just tracked down that this bug was apparently fixed in CVS
1.11.18, released November 2004.
Hrm, what bug exactly? As far as I've gathered from the discussion,
this is a fundamental design limitation of CVS
On 08/09/10 00:37, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
Well, as Max says downthread, cvs -r REL8_4_STABLE -d
INTERMEDIATE_DATE apparently shows the file as being there, which is a
fairly good argument
On 05/09/10 03:55, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com wrote:
Can you post the repo you ended up with somewhere?
Well, it's a Bazaar repository at the moment :-)
But, I'll re-run it targetting git, and push it somewhere. github?
anywhere better
On 03/09/10 03:34, Max Bowsher wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
wrote:
What weirdness, exactly, are you discussing now? I've lost track of
which problem(s) are still unresolved.
Lots of commits that look like this:
commit
On 04/09/10 12:24, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com wrote:
and the result is that things are looking pretty clean :-)
Hey, that's great. But I wonder why Magnus got a different result.
This is the first time I've posted these incantations
On 02/09/10 14:40, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
wrote:
What weirdness, exactly, are you discussing now? I've lost track of
which problem(s) are still unresolved.
Lots of commits that look like this:
On 02/09/10 16:44, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Max Bowsher wrote:
On 02/09/10 14:40, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
wrote:
What weirdness, exactly, are you discussing now? I've lost track of
which problem(s
On 25/08/10 09:18, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:11, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
2. Any non-ASCII characters in, for example, contributor's names show
up differently in the two repos. Generally, the original repo is OK
and
On 25/08/10 01:15, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com wrote:
My guess at this point is that there may be a (very old?) version of cvs
which, when adding a file to a branch, actually misrecorded the file as
having existed on the branch from the moment
On 25/08/10 04:21, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
What seemed more likely to be artifacts were
these:
remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.44.2
remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.51.2
remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.59.2
remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.87.2
On 25/08/10 12:36, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 25/08/10 14:03, Max Bowsher wrote:
On 25/08/10 09:18, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:11, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes:
There are also a number of commits that differ in order
On 25/08/10 16:43, Tom Lane wrote:
Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com writes:
On 25/08/10 04:21, Tom Lane wrote:
What seemed more likely to be artifacts were these:
remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.44.2
remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.51.2
remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.59.2
remotes/origin/unlabeled-1.87.2
On 20/08/10 12:55, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 13:50, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com wrote:
I have run cvs2git on the pgsql module of your CVS locally (is that the
right thing to convert?) if you'd like to compare notes on specific
parts of the conversion.
Correct, that's
need to look at another tool?
The good news: (I just reminded myself/realized that) Max Bowsher has
already implemented pretty much exactly what you want in the cvs2svn
trunk version, including noting in the commit messages any cherry-picks
that are not reflected in the repo ancestry.
Ah
On 20/08/10 12:02, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:49, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com wrote:
On 19/08/10 10:35, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 07:00, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there some way to make cvs2git work
On 20/08/10 21:08, Tom Lane wrote:
Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com writes:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 20:52, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If I understand Max's statements correctly, there is an observable
problem in the actual git history, not just the commit log entries:
it will believe
On 20/08/10 18:28, Tom Lane wrote:
Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com writes:
The history that cvs2svn is aiming to represent here is this:
1) At the time of creation of the REL8_4_STABLE branch, plperl_opmask.pl
did *not* exist.
2) Later, it was added to trunk.
3) Then, someone retroactively
On 20/08/10 14:36, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
I believe Robert had some comments/questions as well :-)
What Magnus means is that I'm a grumpy old developer who complains
about everything.
Anyway, what I noticed was that
On 20/08/10 18:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:28, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com writes:
The history that cvs2svn is aiming to represent here is this:
1) At the time of creation of the REL8_4_STABLE branch, plperl_opmask.pl
did *not* exist
On 20/08/10 19:07, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:56, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com wrote:
On 20/08/10 18:43, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:41, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com wrote:
On 20/08/10 18:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:28, Tom Lane t
On 20/08/10 18:43, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:41, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com wrote:
On 20/08/10 18:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:28, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com writes:
The history that cvs2svn is aiming to represent
On 20/08/10 19:54, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 20:52, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
In fact, is the only thing that's wrong here the commit message?
Because it's probably trivial to just patch that away.. Hmm, but i
guess
On 20/08/10 19:30, Tom Lane wrote:
Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com writes:
My guess at this point is that there may be a (very old?) version of cvs
which, when adding a file to a branch, actually misrecorded the file as
having existed on the branch from the moment it was first added to trunk
30 matches
Mail list logo
