The conversion of my CVS repository to Monotone (with Tailor) is still ongoing. I hope it will be finished by tomorrow morning. After that I'l' try your branch.
AFAIK, the repository has never been hand-edited. I'm not so sure about the server time, though. I'll test it and see how it goes. Thanks. On Tue September 12 2006 17:47, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > Hi, > > well, that just once again tells me how important CVS import is :-). > If you are brave, you can try my revision > 81b2c35092f7b912b94d462d35cd6285e46b8621 of my current work in: > n.v.m.cvsimport-branch-reconstruction. > > If you have a reasonably clean CVS repository (no hand editing done, > server date/time always set properly), that could work quite well. > > I do have some spare time to work on the cvsimport feature of monotone > this and the next week. I hope to be able to prepare the branch > reconstruction feature for landing... but there are still some > uncertainties concerning the algorithm, so you never know. > > Regards > > Markus > > Juan Jose Comellas wrote: > > I'm experimenting with a repository for a client of mine, which has about > > 6 years of commits. If everything goes well I also plan to migrate my > > company's repository, which is fairly big. I'm currently evaluating > > Monotone, Darcs and Mercurial as replacements for CVS, because I don't > > want to spend a single extra second working (suffering?) with it. Our > > current workflow requires easy branching, merging and cherry picking. I > > haven't decided yet, but right now my first option is Monotone, which I > > have been using for smaller projects for over a year, closely followed by > > Darcs. > > > > So far, my lists of pros and cons are: > > > > Monotone: > > Pros: Great merging algorithm; very reliable (it has never corrupted my > > repository/DB); clean source code and written in a language I know. > > Cons: Slow on some operations and for initial pulls, especially with big > > repositories; not very flexible for external I/O (lack of support for > > HTTP as transport protocol); complex setup when having multiple DBs and a > > single port for connections. > > > > Darcs: > > Pros: Great support for cherry picking; has a set of more mature > > third-party tools (Eclipse plugin, Trac integration, etc.); seems to be > > the one with the biggest mindshare; very flexible for external > > communications. > > Cons: The exponential complexity of some of its algorithms and the > > possibility of having it freeze in the middle of a process are not very > > comforting, written in a language I don't know. > > > > Mercurial: > > Pros: Incredibly fast; very flexible for external communications; written > > in a language I know. > > Cons: I have managed to corrupt my repository doing normal operations; > > merging is always a hassle (i.e. I end up doing a lot of manual merging). > > > > On Tue September 12 2006 13:38, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Juan Jose Comellas wrote: > >>> Would you recommend using cvsimport instead of tailor to migrate a big > >>> CVS repository to Monotone? > >> > >> I'm trying to improve cvsimport because tailor didn't fit my needs (I > >> want branches correctly imported, no changed changelog entries and .. no > >> crashes on import ;-). > >> > >> However, cvsimport is still lacking branch reconstruction. If you only > >> need to import the CVS HEAD branch, give it a try. > >> > >> What repository do you experiment with? An open source one? > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Markus -- Juan Jose Comellas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
