From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Haggerty Subject: Re: cvs2svn conversion directly to git ready for experimentation Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:58:35 +0200 Message-ID: <46B37ADB.8020103@alum.mit.edu> References: <46B2E8F3.30301@alum.mit.edu> <0BB549C6E74E24409FB20B3B1D1B6644029461C0@ATL1EX11.corp.etradegrp.com> <9e4733910708030841r31175efg4ea4ea41e852ab2@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Patwardhan, Rajesh" , Martin Langhoff , Guilhem Bonnefille , git@vger.kernel.org, users@cvs2svn.tigris.org To: Jon Smirl X-From: users-return-1615-gcvscu-users=m.gmane.org@cvs2svn.tigris.org Fri Aug 03 20:58:51 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvscu-users@gmane.org Received: from sc157.sjc.collab.net ([204.16.104.146] helo=tigris.org) by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IH2ML-0007iX-M6 for gcvscu-users@gmane.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:58:50 +0200 Received: (qmail 30619 invoked by uid 5000); 3 Aug 2007 18:58:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@cvs2svn.tigris.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list users@cvs2svn.tigris.org Received: (qmail 30608 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2007 18:58:47 -0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAJYXs0bAbSoIemdsb2JhbACOEAIJCg X-IronPort-AV: i="4.19,218,1183359600"; d="scan'208"; a="63542424:sNHT19266128" X-IRONPORT: SCANNED X-Envelope-From: mhagger@alum.mit.edu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070604 Thunderbird/1.5.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 Followup-To: users@cvs2svn.tigris.org In-Reply-To: <9e4733910708030841r31175efg4ea4ea41e852ab2@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 Archived-At: [I set followup-to users@cvs2svn.tigris.org, since this has nothing to do with git.] Jon Smirl wrote: > On 8/3/07, Patwardhan, Rajesh wrote: >> Hello Michael, >> I will explain a scenario (we are passing thru this right now) >> 1) you have 10 years worth of cvs data. >> 2) We want to move to svn. >> 3) The repository move should be in such a way that the development does >> not get hampered for any 1 work day. >> 4) We have atleast 4 major modules in cvs which takes about 30 - 40 >> hours each for conversion currently. > > There are known ways (that haven't been implemented) to get the 40 hr > number down to 1/2 hour. Would that be a better approach than doing > incremental imports? Jon, I would like very much to hear how you propose to get an 60-fold speed increase in cvs2svn. I've never heard of any plausible way to accomplish anything even close to this. Please note that the user wants to convert to Subversion, not git. But even converting to git, I don't think that such speeds are possible without massive changes that would include processing everything in RAM and switching large parts of cvs2svn from Python to a compiled language. Michael