Re: CVS -> SVN -> Git

esrthyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

> So, I hear about plans to make cvs2svn generate
something other than
> Subversion, and here's my instant reaction:
>
> 	    	       	   DON'T DO IT!
>
> This is not because I think Subversion is some kind of
final answer to the
> VCS problem.  Fame from it -- I'm moving towards
Mercurial.  No, the
> real reason I think this would be a waste of time is
subtler than that.
>
> Subversion, by design, is very good at capturing the
metadata from
> SCCS and RCS and the various CVS variants floating
around.  In fact,
> lifting from those into Subversion is basically
lossless - the real
> problems are that (a) as Michael notes, the data you're
losslessly
> lifting is scratchy, and (b) as I've noted, you have to
use heuristics
> to coalesce file histories into changesets and those
don't always make
> the links they should.

Converting to Subversion might be lossless, but is it really
the
most convenient intermediate format for other people to
convert
further from?

Even after xxx2svn overcomes the problems (a) and (b) you
noted
above, my impression has been that svn2yyy needs to work
harder
than necessary to grok the branches/ and tags/ that
artificially
are flattened, only because Subversion does not do branches
nor
tags, but just represents them as copies.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribecvs2svn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpcvs2svn.tigris.org