Re: git: uh-oh

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 16:21, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <mhagger(at)alum(dot)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Well, even if the goal is to faithfully represent the bogus history
>>> shown by CVS, cvs2git isn't doing a good job of it.
>
>> Them's fightin' words :-)
>
> Yeah ;-), but they were mainly directed at Robert, who AIUI was
> asserting that the behavior of "cvs co -D" ought to be taken as defining
> what the CVS history means.  I don't particularly buy that, and clearly
> you don't either.
>
>> Incorrect.  The CVS history implies three user-initiated events in this
>> neighborhood:
>
>> 2010.02.19: version 1.7 committed to trunk
>> unknown date: file added to branch REL8_4_STABLE (1.7.6)
>> 2010.05.13: file modified on branch REL8_4_STABLE to create 1.7.6.1
>
> Right.  The problem I've got is that cvs2git takes "unknown" as meaning
> "I can do whatever I want, the more random the better".  It would seem
> to me to be good software engineering to recognize that you don't have
> enough information and to provide some way for cvs2git's users to modify
> its behavior on this point.
>
> Anyway I think the solution path for us is probably going to be to
> retroactively add the information, along the lines suggested by Max.
> I was hoping that somebody would have tried a conversion by now with
> the partial patch I suggested last night, but maybe I'm going to have
> to do it myself.  Where can I find the version of cvs2git we're using?

I'm using svn trunk revision 5244 from
http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/svn/cvs2svn/trunk.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/