Happy new year to all! I agree that converting from cvs to git is a good idea. However, GitHub as the git repo provider may not be the best, and I think that should be discussed. (I do love GitHub, and I use it for all my personal projects, but there are some issues ... )
What I rather suggest is that we take a chat with savannah hackers. There must be other GNU projects that also have the desire to convert from cvs to git. Best regards, -Øystein PS: There's a lot of things I would love to do with the code base: - Move to git - Get rid of Hungarian naming variables and have better abstract types. Like there should be a type for board position, move, dice roll, etc. - Separate the engine from the GUI (This s a huge task that require a lot of redesign) - Get the GUI part compatible to GTK4 (This is easier if the above point is done) - (lot's of other stuff) tir. 3. jan. 2023 kl. 00:17 skrev Philippe Michel <[email protected] >: > Hello Carsten, > > I agree that using git would have many advantages. I had tried to > convert the repository (with cvs-fast-export) some time ago, but I'm not > too familiar with git and wasn't sure the result was right. The > documentation of cvs-fast-export gives a lot of warnings... On the other > hand the structure of the gnubg repository seems relatively simple: it > must have been 10 years or so that branches have not been used. > > > About a migration to git: I tried two different tools with different > results: > > > > a) cvs-fast-export, from https://gitlab.com/esr/cvs-fast-export > > b) cvs2git, part of cvs2svn, from https://github.com/mhagger/cvs2svn > > > For a) you can see the result here: > > https://github.com/carsten-wenderdel/gnubg-fast-export > > > - When converting both modules “gnubg” and “gnubg-nn” it moved the > > latter as a folder “nn” into the “gnubg” folder. That’s strange, but > > if those two modules/folders don’t reference each other, it shouldn’t > > harm. Also once in git, those folders can be moved without losing the > > history. > > I converted the gnubg and gnubg-nn subdirectories in separate git repos. > This seemed more natural to have gnubg at the root of its repo. > > > - It didn’t convert the tags properly. We could add tags manually, but > > still not good. > > I don't see anything wrong at your github URL. The tags are present and > switching to one of them seems to show the right version of the files. > > FWIW, what I did was : > > rsync -av rsync://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/sources/gnubg/ gnubg-full-cvs/ > > cvsconvert -v -A authormap gnubg-full-cvs/gnubg > > Then, in the created gnubg-full-cvs-gnubg-nn-git directory : > > git gc --aggressive > git checkout master > > At this point "git tag" shows the tags, "git checkout <some tag>" shows > the right files as far as I can see. > > > Another open question: As “author” git would always use the user > > handle of the CVS committer. Do we want to have full name and email > > address instead? That’s possible if those tools would be fed with a > > file mapping those user handles (like “plm”) to full name / email > > address. > > As with CVS committer and author often were different people this > > might not be wanted though. > > As the command I gave earlier show, I think it would be preferable to > have real names and adresses rather than savannah handles, but I don't > understand your last sentence. I think most of the time the committer > was the author of the change ; the latter may sometimes have been an > occasionnal contributor who may or not have been credited in the > comment, but using names and adresses would allow to do it more > systematically in the future, wouldn't it ? > > > Still hoping to hear more opinions! > > What puzzles me most in your suggestions is this : > > > > So my suggestion is to first move the repository to GitHub. > > Moving to gitub doesn't seem especially urgent to me. First task would > be ensure that the conversion to a git repo is done right. Your report > shows some uncertainties in this regard. > > Then I would find it natural to clone it to savannah (and, I suppose, > have the cvs repository made unavailable or at least read-only). That > would already allow anyone interested to easily clone the repository > locally, to github, or elsewhere. > > Only then could it be envisaged to move the reference origin (and > possibly everything else, bug reporting, binaries distribution, mailing > list) elsewhere. > > I must be out of touch with the modern open source ecosystem but > > > Some developers care about their contribution statistics on GitHub > > came as a surprise to me. > > A significant enough contribution to have one's name in a documentation, > readme, changelog? Great! Bug reports and occasionnal suggestions for > something I use? Obviously! But going in priority where there are > counters to inflate ??? > >
