Re: git: uh-oh

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 13:50, Max Bowsher <maxb@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 20/08/10 12:02, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:49, Max Bowsher <maxb@f2s.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/08/10 10:35, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 07:00, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>>>> Is there some way to make cvs2git work this way, and just not bother
>>>>>> even trying to create merge commits, or is that fundamentally
>>>>>> impossible and we need to look at another tool?
>>>>>
>>>>> The good news: (I just reminded myself/realized that) Max Bowsher has
>>>>> already implemented pretty much exactly what you want in the cvs2svn
>>>>> trunk version, including noting in the commit messages any cherry-picks
>>>>> that are not reflected in the repo ancestry.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, that's great.
>>>
>>> I should mention that the way it notes this is to reference commits by
>>> their timestamp, author and initial line of log message - it does this
>>> because cvs2git doesn't know the commit sha ever - that doesn't appear
>>> until the stream is fed through git fast-import. I did briefly raise the
>>> idea of augmenting the fast-import process to support substituting
>>> fast-import marks to shas in log messages, but didn't get time to take
>>> it beyond an idea.
>>>
>>>>> The bad news: It is broken [1].  But I don't think it should be too much
>>>>> work to fix it.
>>>>
>>>> That's less great of course, but it gives hope!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your continued efforts!
>>>
>>> I've just made a commit to cvs2svn trunk. I hope this should now be fixed.
>>
>>
>> Great. I will download and test the trunk version soon. I'm currently
>> running a test using cvs2svn and then git-svn clone from that - but
>> it's insanely slow (been going for 30+ hours now, and probably has
>> 8-10 hours more to go)...
>
> Uh, you are? Why do it that way?

Trying other possible options, in case this one doesn't work out :-) I
figured I might try something while you guys were working on a fix -
didn't expect the fix to show up quite so quickly :)


> The thing I fixed pertains to the direct use of cvs2git, and will have
> no effect on executions of cvs2svn.

Right. I started this one yesterday...


> I have run cvs2git on the pgsql module of your CVS locally (is that the
> right thing to convert?) if you'd like to compare notes on specific
> parts of the conversion.

Correct, that's the one. Can you put your repo up somewhere so we can
look at it? Then I don't have to wait for my process to finish :D

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/