Re: gitweb wishlist

[David Mansfield <david@cobite.com>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 23 May 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>>I've gotten side-tracked with purely git issues, and since I don't 
>>actually have any CVS archives, the cvs->git translation will be on the 
>>back-burner for a while, but your "Ancestor branch" patch seems to at 
>>least solve the problem that cvsps didn't show all the information that 
>>was there.
> 
> 
> Naff.
> 
> I just checked in a "cvs2git.c" file in the "tools" project (which has my 
> patch application stuff).
> 
> It's still buggy, and it's hacky as hell, but you can basically do 
> something like this:
> 
> 	cvsps | cvs2git > script
> 
> with the normal setup for "cvsps", and "cvs2git" needs one additional
> stage, namely it wants to know the RCSDIR where to find the RCS files
> (that should be basically "$CVSROOT/module").
> 
> That _script_ then creates a git archive. Very hacky. So after you've 
> successfully created the conversion script, check it to see that it looks 
> sane, and then do
> 
> 	sh script
> 
> and the end result is a git'ified version of your CVS repo (and a 
> corrupted working directory, btw, so look out. It _shouldn't_ corrupt 
> your old CVS repo, though, so it should be ok).

I'll take a look.  One problem is that many folks use non-local cvs... 
not sure if that will be an issue.  I'll look to cleaning this up if 
necessary.

> 
> It has the logic for branches, but it doesn't work, and I'm fed up enough
> with CVS and RCS for the moment that I'm not going to work on it any more
> tonight. I don't know what stupid bug I have (I've had about a million of
> them on this silly program), but it's at a point where I think others
> might find it interesting, and it's probably/hopefully some really
> embarrassing typo or something and easily fixed.
> 

I actually found an issue with the 30-second ancestor branch patch I 
sent and I'm doing that one properly now.  Once that's done I can look 
at the branch capture logic in cvs2git and see if anything pops out.


> It converted Peter's "syslinux" repository in a couple of minutes, 
> resulting in 1038 commits (it _should_ have resulted in 1046 commits, 
> that's the branch thing afaik) and most of it looks sane:

Really cool.  What's 8 commits between friends?

David