Re: cvs import

["Jon Smirl" <jonsmirl@gmail.com>]

On 9/14/06, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> But aside from this point, I think an intrinsic part of implementing
> incremental conversion is "convert the subsequent changes to the CVS
> repository *subject to the constraints* imposed by decisions made in
> earlier conversion runs.  And the real trick is that things can be done
> in CVS (e.g., line-end changes, manual copying of files in the repo)
> that (a) are unversioned and (b) have retroactive effects that go
> arbitrarily far back in time.  This is the reason that I am pessimistic
> that incremental conversion will ever work robustly.

We don't need really robust incremental conversion. It just needs to
work most of the time. Incremental conversion is usually used to track
the main CVS repo with the new tool while people decide if they like
the new tool. Commits will still flow to the CVS repo and get
incrementally copied to the new tool so that it tracks CVS in close to
real time.

If the increment import messes up you can always redo a full import,
but a full Mozilla import takes about 2 hours with the git tools. I
would always do a full import on the day of the actual cut over.

-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com