Martin Langhoff <>:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Eric S. Raymond <> wrote:
> > I tried very hard to salvage this program - the ability to
> > remote-fetch CVS repos without rsync access was appealing
> Is that the only thing we lose, if we abandon cusps? More to the
> point, is there today an incremental import option, outside of
> git-cvsimport+cvsps?

You'll have to remind me what you mean by "incremental" here. Possibly
it's something cvs-fast-export could support.

But what I'm trying to tell you is that, even after I've done a dozen
releases and fixed the worst problems I could find, cvsps is far too
likely to mangle anything that passes through it.  The idea that you
are preserving *anything* valuable by sticking with it is a mirage.

"That bear trap!  It's mangling your leg!"  "But it's so *shiny*..."

> [ I am a bit out of touch with the current codebase but I coded and
> maintained a good part of it back in the day. However naive/limited
> the cvsps parser was, it did help a lot of projects make the leap to
> git... ]

I fear those "lots of projects" have subtly damaged repository
histories, then.  I warned about this problem a year ago; today I
found out it is much worse than I knew then, in fact so bad that I
cannot responsibly do anything but try to get cvsps turfed out of use
*as soon as possible*.

And no, that should *not* wait on cvs-fast-export getting better 
support for "incremental" or any other legacy feature.  Every week
that cvsps remains the git project's choice is another week in which
somebody's project history is likely to get trashed.

This feels very strange and unpleasant.  I've never had to shoot one
of my own projects through the head before.

I blogged about it:

Ignore the malware warning. It's triggered by something else on;
they're fixing it.
                <a href="";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to