Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:07:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: Rene Ladan <rene@freebsd.org>, Gavin Atkinson <gavin@freebsd.org>, doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Conversion to SVN Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1110100004420.882@multics.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <4E91D074.4080102@FreeBSD.org> References: <20111007141312.GJ26743@acme.spoerlein.net> <4E8F0AA2.3020704@freebsd.org> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1110072203320.17415@ury.york.ac.uk> <4E8F8873.4030006@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1110091251010.17907@ury.york.ac.uk> <4E91D074.4080102@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Doug Barton wrote: > On 10/09/2011 04:59, Gavin Atkinson wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Doug Barton wrote: >> >>> On 10/07/2011 14:15, Gavin Atkinson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Rene Ladan wrote: >>>>> Op 07-10-2011 16:13, Ulrich Sp?rlein schreef: >>>>>> it looks like I'm not the only one thinking about moving the doc/www >>>>>> repos from CVS to SVN, and other people actually have not only thought >>>>>> about it but already played around with conversions. >>>>>> >>>>>> gavin did some preliminary conversions and it turns out that we end up >>>>>> with ~50k revisions and about 650MB of changes (IIRC). There are also >>>>>> lots of weird branches, so perhaps we could size that down a bit. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I, personally, would like to see is us using the same svn repo as >>>>>> src. That means we would have to stop svn.freebsd.org for the >>>>>> conversion, turn off email sending, dump 50k revisions into it (under >>>>>> /doc and /www perhaps? where should branches/tags end up?), then turn >>>>>> everything back on. >>>> >>>> The more I think about this, the less I like the idea. I really don't >>>> like the idea of having revision numbers which no longer increase with >>>> commit date (i.e. having revisions 1-250,000 correspond to the existing >>>> src tree, 250,000-300,000 being the imported doc tree, and then the >>>> combined repo being 300,001 onwards). >>> >>> I'm sorry, I don't understand your concern here. The commit ids >>> increment monotonically in svn, and the number is global to the whole >>> repo. Given that the individual files won't be increasing to a >>> deterministic value, I don't understand why we care what the actual >>> number is. >> >> I don't like the idea that r226166 can be a change from 10 minutes ago, >> and r226167 would be a change from 1994. > > Well that couldn't happen because the numbers increase monotonically > over the whole repo, but even assuming that you meant the reverse I > still don't understand why you care what the number is. > > Let's assume that we start a new repo for doc. What's going to happen is > that the cvs -> svn converter will take the first set of files added to > the repo and they will be revision 1. Then the next set will be revision > 2, etc. What's incredibly likely to happen is that for any given file > your new change is going to be revision NNN and the immediately-previous > change is going to be revision XXX, where the values could be just about > anything, say NNN=659 and XXX=237. So what does it matter if the numbers > are 2 or 3 or 4 digit "random" numbers, or if the numbers are 6 digits? head/ (for src) is currently r226182 or thereabouts ... if we import doc+www on top of that, that would mean either replaying all of the doc+www history on top of that (so that r226183 is now that doc commit from 1994), or renumbering src revisions. The latter seems almost unbearably painful, to me ... -Ben Kadukhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.GSO.1.10.1110100004420.882>