On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:15:26AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net>: > > Back when this guide was written, cvsimport was the only > > game in town. These days it is probably not the best option. > > It is absolutely not. As I have tried to point out here before, it > is *severely* broken in its processing of branchy CVS repositories. > > Nobody wanted to hear that, but it's still true. Recommending it > is irresponsible.
I think your points came across, and that is why we have the big warning in git-cvsimport in the first place. This is really just adding a pointer to that warning from another relevant location (that frankly, I didn't even know existed until fixing a nearby problem). I _do_ think cvsimport, buggy as it may be, may still have some potential value over other solutions (if you have a simple history, and it is easier to install or run than the alternatives). But I converted all of my CVS history to git over ten years ago and have never looked back. I really don't know if that is the case or not. So personally I have no objection if somebody wants to rewrite the gitcvs-migration page to discuss the other options more thoroughly, or warn more clearly about cvsimport's flaws. These patches were just "Jeez, we are not even warning people _at all_, so at the minimum we should do so". I am not qualified to write on the current state of the art in CVS importing. -Peff