Re: git: uh-oh

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 15:53, 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:
>>> So, if we're prepared to assert that we've never done that, could we
>>> have an option to cvs2git that is willing to use the first commit on
>>> a branch to represent the act of adding the file to the branch?
>
>> I'm afraid this would be pretty far down on my long todo list.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> Somebody could use "git filter-branch" to make this change after the
>> conversion, but I can't estimate how much work it would be.
>
> The conversion is already far better than I expected it would be when
> we were first discussing this switch, so my inclination is to just live
> with this one wart.
>
> I spent more time over the weekend comparing various branches' histories
> between cvs2cl and Max's repository.  I found a lot of places where
> cvs2cl had problems :-(, but none where the git history could be blamed.
> I'm ready to sign off on this conversion process as being Good Enough,
> modulo two points:
>
> * Change the committer name assigned to manufactured commits, as already
> mentioned.
>
> * Please make the manufactured commits read "cvs2git" not "cvs2svn".
> I don't want people wondering in future when it was we used SVN.
>
> AFAIK both of these are trivial configuration fixes.

I'm actually re-running a migration right now with this - and with the
change to use rcs instead of cvs, to see if I can reproduce Max's
proper repository.

You're saying you don't "require" a fix on the latest issue here? Or
should we spend some time trying to figure out if we can fix it with
git-filter-branch?

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