Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2010-05-12 at 16:11 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Of course, we might also find some other brokenness if we try to import
>> all the tags. Also, be aware of this (from
>> <http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/cvs2git.html>):
>>
>> Differences between CVS and git branch/tag models: CVS allows a
>> branch or tag to be created from arbitrary combinations of source
>> revisions from multiple source branches. It even allows file
>> revisions that were never contemporaneous to be added to a single
>> branch/tag. Git, on the other hand, only allows the full source
>> tree, as it existed at some instant in the history, to be branched
>> or tagged as a unit. Moreover, the ancestry of a git revision makes
>> implications about the contents of that revision. This difference
>> means that it is fundamentally impossible to represent an arbitrary
>> CVS history in a git repository 100% faithfully.
>>
>
> Right, and omitting tags was in fact one of the "features" of fromcvs
> that made us use it, because any tool that tries to convert tags will
> explode on our CVS tree, for reasons explained in the above paragraph.
>
> We have also discussed this in more detail about three times before.
>
>
Well, yes, but I have been wondering if this has to be an all or nothing
deal. How many tags can we not tie to a known tree in git? My suspicion
is we can probably identify most of them quite well. If we can that
would be nice.
cheers
andrew