Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 12:23:01 +0100 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> Subject: Re: Subversion? (Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base) Message-ID: <20060303112301.GX11960@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <25963.1141377749@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20060303082016.GA17730@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <25963.1141377749@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--zS7rBR6csb6tI2e1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 09:22:29AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20060303082016.GA17730@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>, Divacky Roman writ= es: > > I think that Robert Ollivier strongly suggested using mercurial as our > > (possibly) next vcs, so if any move from cvs then to mercurial.. >=20 > Until somebody comes up with a killer argument, and none of those have > been seen yet, it is extremely unlikely that we will change vcs at > all. >=20 > Considering how much stuff a change of vcs would affect, just think > about all the scripts and routines the committers have on their > development computers, a significantly better reason than "it is > prettier" is required. I totally agree, but don't overlook the value of better historical preservation and current propagation of complete changesets, which is a property of almost all current vcs's other than CVS. I think it would be a very good reason to switch, and it doesn't really matter which incarnation of <current vcs> you choose because converting after that is a lot easier. I did look into converting the FreeBSD CVS repo to Subversion about a year ago. The convertor script (http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/) did not manage to convert the first (admittedly non-trivial) section of the repository with vendor branches properly (iirc I tried to convert src/usr.sbin/named but I'm not sure anymore). I tried some other parts of the repo and had to fix up a lot of older RCS files by hand, before getting some more invalid results. At that point I figured I would retest when cvs2svn was improved somewhat. I also know that the creator of svk (http://svk.elixus.org/) managed to convert a few branches (RELENG_5 and -CURRENT at the time) and keep them synchronized, but that effort apparently has also stalled. I cannot find an URL to it anymore. In any case this is rather a bikeshed discussion without any real, working conversions provided along with the arguments that Poul-Henning rightly asks for. --Stijn --=20 Coughlin's law: never tell tales about a woman no matter how far away she is, she'll always hear you. -- Cocktail --zS7rBR6csb6tI2e1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFECCcVY3r/tLQmfWcRAhG2AJ0eHZa0tOh/15BhLWnK996MTybQIQCfYMC7 wnY6XkLvPMHaKhwDEQz/RmI= =EIkP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zS7rBR6csb6tI2e1--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060303112301.GX11960>