monotone-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: A better approach for cvs->mtn?


From: Markus Schiltknecht
Subject: Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: A better approach for cvs->mtn?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:27:45 +0100
User-agent: Icedove 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061116)

Hi,

Bruce Stephens wrote:
Larry Hastings <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

So why not piggy-back on its success?  Skip "cvs2mtn"; instead
create "svn2mtn", or enhance tailor's support for svn->monotone
conversion as needed.  Then declare the first step in the official
"cvs2mtn" conversion process is "convert to Subversion"!  This seems
like the best bang-for-the-buck approach, getting rock-solid
migration for both CVS /and/ SVN to monotone--which I'm guessing are
the top two SCMs these days.

Are you aware of my net.venge.monotone.cvsimport-branch-reconstruction branch? It's using the same algorithm cvs2svn 2.0 is going to use but targets monotone directly.

It still misses support for tags and aborts on certain conflicts, so it's not exactly ready for production use, yet. And I've been very short on (spare) time recently...

I'm not entirely convinced it'll help that much: if cvs2svn does a
good job then it'll be producing a subversion repository which is also
a wretched hive of inconsistency (with tags made up of files from
different branches, etc.).  Subversion has the advantage in that it
can represent such things, whereas other systems (like monotone) just
can't.

That's one of the reasons why I didn't want to go that way. The other argument being that cvs_import already had most of the framework needed for the job.

Regards

Markus





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]