Re: [Monotone-devel] cvsimport branch reconstruction

[Juan Jose Comellas]

The conversion of my CVS repository to Monotone (with Tailor) is still 
ongoing. I hope it will be finished by tomorrow morning. After that I'l' try 
your branch.

AFAIK, the repository has never been hand-edited. I'm not so sure about the 
server time, though. I'll test it and see how it goes.

Thanks.


On Tue September 12 2006 17:47, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> Hi,
>
> well, that just once again tells me how important CVS import is :-).
> If you are brave, you can try my revision
> 81b2c35092f7b912b94d462d35cd6285e46b8621 of my current work in:
> n.v.m.cvsimport-branch-reconstruction.
>
> If you have a reasonably clean CVS repository (no hand editing done,
> server date/time always set properly), that could work quite well.
>
> I do have some spare time to work on the cvsimport feature of monotone
> this and the next week. I hope to be able to prepare the branch
> reconstruction feature for landing... but there are still some
> uncertainties concerning the algorithm, so you never know.
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> Juan Jose Comellas wrote:
> > I'm experimenting with a repository for a client of mine, which has about
> > 6 years of commits. If everything goes well I also plan to migrate my
> > company's repository, which is fairly big. I'm currently evaluating
> > Monotone, Darcs and Mercurial as replacements for CVS, because I don't
> > want to spend a single extra second working (suffering?) with it. Our
> > current workflow requires easy branching, merging and cherry picking. I
> > haven't decided yet, but right now my first option is Monotone, which I
> > have been using for smaller projects for over a year, closely followed by
> > Darcs.
> >
> > So far, my lists of pros and cons are:
> >
> > Monotone:
> > Pros: Great merging algorithm; very reliable (it has never corrupted my
> > repository/DB); clean source code and written in a language I know.
> > Cons: Slow on some operations and for initial pulls, especially with big
> > repositories; not very flexible for external I/O (lack of support for
> > HTTP as transport protocol); complex setup when having multiple DBs and a
> > single port for connections.
> >
> > Darcs:
> > Pros: Great support for cherry picking; has a set of more mature
> > third-party tools (Eclipse plugin, Trac integration, etc.); seems to be
> > the one with the biggest mindshare; very flexible for external
> > communications.
> > Cons: The exponential complexity of some of its algorithms and the
> > possibility of having it freeze in the middle of a process are not very
> > comforting, written in a language I don't know.
> >
> > Mercurial:
> > Pros: Incredibly fast; very flexible for external communications; written
> > in a language I know.
> > Cons: I have managed to corrupt my repository doing normal operations;
> > merging is always a hassle (i.e. I end up doing a lot of manual merging).
> >
> > On Tue September 12 2006 13:38, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Juan Jose Comellas wrote:
> >>> Would you recommend using cvsimport instead of tailor to migrate a big
> >>> CVS repository to Monotone?
> >>
> >> I'm trying to improve cvsimport because tailor didn't fit my needs (I
> >> want branches correctly imported, no changed changelog entries and .. no
> >> crashes on import ;-).
> >>
> >> However, cvsimport is still lacking branch reconstruction. If you only
> >> need to import the CVS HEAD branch, give it a try.
> >>
> >> What repository do you experiment with? An open source one?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Markus

-- 
Juan Jose Comellas
(address@hidden)