Brian Smith writes:
>
> I notice that the number you give and the number fossil reports don't
> quite match up. Did the conversion happen correctly? If not would you
> be willing to share some details about the repository (# of branches,
> # of tags, # of merges (in particular merges involving more than 2
> branches has not been tested), etc. no confidential details needed) so
> I could work to fix the bug?
>
There are many merges, but I think no merge has more than two
parents (99.9 % sure).
It has 37 tags ('hg tags' shows me 37 lines).
and it has 22 branches
of which:
3 active
1 closed (hg --close-branch used)
and the rest inactive (probably a "closed leaf" in fossil)
I don't know how to count the merges... but they are a lot. We are a
dispersed team (5 developers around the globe, with different in time
zones, etc...).
---
The conversion went good. I have poked around in the history and it
seems that the recent history of my project is correct, also the new
features of displaying the "DAG" history is good (and my project has a
"rich" graph, with many diversions and merges, so it is a good testing
bed), very intuitive, maybe with some color it would be perfect.
I know that the number of changesets is different... probably your
tool does not count the merges?
---
If you want I can help you in this way: you can modify your tool to
make some debug "log" of what's happening... you can give to me the
modified script and I rerun the conversion and I can give to you the
log so you can study it offline.
Lino
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
