On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 21:22, Max Bowsher <maxb@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 20/08/10 19:54, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 20:52, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>>> In fact, is the only thing that's wrong here the commit message?
>>>> Because it's probably trivial to just patch that away.. Hmm, but i
>>>> guess we'd like to hav ethe actual commit message and not just another
>>>> fixed one..
>>>
>>> If I understand Max's statements correctly, there is an observable
>>> problem in the actual git history, not just the commit log entries:
>>> it will believe that a file added on a branch had been there since
>>> the branch forked off, not just as of the time it got added.
>
> Not since the branch forked off, but rather it will believe the file
> added to the branch from the moment it was added to trunk - the issue is
> actually in the cvs repository too - were you to ask CVS for the state
> of the branch at the relevant time, you'd see the extra file there too.
>
> In the specific case we've been looking at so far, the file is only
> appearing less than a minute prematurely.
Yeah, that's because in our "backpatching" we generally do them at the
same time, so cvs2cl will pick it up. E.g. you modify all the branches
and have a script commit to them all with the same commit message.
>>> Now, I would think that your tests of file contents as of the various
>>> release tags should have caught extra files, so maybe I'm
>>> misunderstanding.
>>
>> I haven't been able to complete that test on the repo converted by the
>> new version yet, because the repo Max prepared for us had the keyword
>> problem. The other process is still running.
>
> Would it help at all for you to send me the options file and related
> file so I can produce a repository converted as you are expecting?
In fact, the conversion *just* finished. I'm running the comparison
script now. It's at least looking reasonably right - no changes in
REL6_4. It'll take a while for it to finish on the rest... This, in
fact, means that it's doing better than version 2.3.0 with regards to
the small issues with had with vendor branches as well, which is good
news (see other threads in the archives).
That said, the options file is certainly not secret. I've sent the one
used for 2.3.0 before, here's the one I used for trunk (trunk of
cvs2git).
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/