Joseph Myers <[email protected]>:
> Indeed. Ideally the tree objects in the git conversion should have
> exactly the same contents as SVN commits, and so be shared with the
> git-svn history to reduce the eventual repository size (except where there
> are defects in the git-svn history, or the git conversion fixes up cvs2svn
> artifacts and so some old revisions end up more accurately reflecting old
> history than the SVN repository does).
I don't think sharing with the git-svn history will be possible. git-svn
is a terrible whole-history converter; the odds of getting the same
topology out of reposurgeon are basically nil, and the problem of matching
different topologies is quite hard.
I'll be frank; if it's doable at all (which I doubt) I think this is a
*really bad idea* - a complexity hairball with few or no actual benefits.
I'm not willing to even try for it unless demand from the development
group is overwhelming and you're able to wait a long, long time for
results.
> One particular case: we have well-maintained .gitignore files, that might
> even be more accurate than the svn:ignore properties, and I think the
> conversion should keep those and disable all smart ignore handling (just
> discard svn:ignore properties, and pass through the existing .gitignore
> files (and .cvsignore files)).
This is also not currently possible, but it's not an intrinsically bad
idea. Giving reposurgeon an option to to support it wouldn't be very
difficult.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
