On 07/09/10 16:21, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 17:07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 16:16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> If you want to try, and it doesn't take much time, go for it. I was
>>>> just saying I wouldn't complain if we decide to live with it as-is.
>>
>>> Ok. Do we have a way of identifying them - e.g. is it all the commits
>>> with a certain commit msg?
>>
>> Look for
>> This commit was manufactured by cvs2svn to create branch ...
>
> Ok, found a bunch of those (78 to be exact). And the issue with them
> is we want to change the commit author on them to be whomever made the
> first commit on the branch *after* that?
I would say you emphatically don't want to do that, because they can
contain more changes that were unrelated to that author.
The logic, as I understand it from Michael's explanation of cvs2git's
guts, is to flush out any pending "add to branch because of implicit
appearance of a branch tag" operations when something other change is
about to occur on the destination branch. So unrelated stuff can get
batched together.
Personally, the idea of trying to use git-filter-branch to make what
cvs2git currently gives you more sensible scares me silly. I think the
approach should be to use it as is, or improve cvs2git.
Another glitch that might be worth fixing before you convert is the way
that cvs2git says "This commit was manufactured by cvs2svn to create
branch", when it actually means "manufactured to incrementally create
the branch state as it appears in CVS" - i.e. many of these commits
actually update an existing branch. Just as soon as I can figure out how
to cleanly fit that into cvs2git's structure, I want it to change the
word "create" to "update" in most of those commits.
Max.