On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:53:47AM -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Eric S. Raymond <e...@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> >> Anyway I hope that incremental CVS import would be needed less
> >> and less as CVS is replaced by any more modern version control system.
> >
> > I agree.  I have never understood why people on this list are attached to 
> > it.
> I think I have answered this question already once in this thread, and
> a few times in similar threads with Eric in the past.
> People track CVS repos that they have not control over. Smart
> programmers forced to work with a corporate CVS repo. It happens also
> with SVN, and witness the popularity of git-svn which can sanely
> interact with an "active" svn repo.
> This is a valid use case. Hard (impossible?) to support. But there
> should be no surprise as to its reasons.

And at this point the git-cvsimport manpage says:

   WARNING: git cvsimport uses cvsps version 2, which is considered
   deprecated; it does not work with cvsps version 3 and later. If you
   are performing a one-shot import of a CVS repository consider using
   cvs2git[1] or parsecvs[2].

Which I think sums up the position nicely; if you're doing a one-shot
import then the standalone tools are going to be a better choice, but if
you're trying to use Git for your work on top of CVS the only choice is
cvsps with git-cvsimport.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to