[Savannah-hackers-public] Re: reliable, incremental git->cvs ?

[Jim Meyering]

Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 11:32:55AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> BTW, I've converted gnulib's (as of a day or two ago) CVS repo into a
>> git repository (with proper "User Name <address@hidden>" labels), so if
>> there's a way to put up a trial git repository, let me know...
>
> I created a 'gnulib' repository, with temporarily denyNonFastforwards
> = false so you can perform multiple upload tests there.

Perfect.
I converted the CVS repository 5 days ago and have pushed
the resulting (slightly dated) git repo to there:

  http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git

You can get a copy to play with via:

  git clone git://git.sv.gnu.org/gnulib

> (I say temporarily because since the option essentially allows
> removing history (i.e. overwriting heads/master arbitrarily), it can't
> be enabled for a real repository).
>
>
> I haven't setup an auto-packing commit hook so may need to have me do
> that. I'm planning to add something like in post-update:
>
>   export GIT_DIR=coreutils.git
>   git-count-objects
>   # If > 5120k
>   git repack
>   git prune

Sounds good.
Makes me think git-count-objects could use options
to help people do that, e.g., to allow this:

  git-count-objects --size=5M && { git repack && git prune; }
  git-count-objects --files=20K && { git repack && git prune; }

Otherwise, everyone ends up writing their own code to
parse the output of that program.