On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 23:27, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 05:42, Jens-Heiner Rechtien <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 06/27/2011 01:08 AM, Greg Stein wrote: >>... >>>> Merging them in hg is easy, just pull/merge. But ... we are talking about >>>> a >>>> hundred or so CWSs here. In all kinds of readiness states. >>>> http://hg.services.openoffice.org >>>> >>>> If we merge them now, we won't have a working OOo for a long time. Now, >>>> we >>>> could skip the merge part and leave the heads "dangling". Hg heads are >>>> kinda >>> >>> That's what I was thinking. And then map these "dangling" heads to >>> individual branches in svn. >>> >>>> anonymous branches in Mercurial. Don't know if a repository with multiple >>>> heads can be converted to SVN. Probably quite tricky (the tool would need >>>> to >>>> generate sensible names for the different heads). >>> >>> If the converter tool doesn't have the feature, it seems pretty >>> straight-forward to add code to either provide a name mapping for >>> them, or auto-generate names. >> >> The anonymous heads could be marked with the cws name as a mercurial >> bookmark, just after the individual pull step. That way the information is >> at least already in the all-in-one hg repository. A smart converter could >> use them to generate svn branch names. Something along this lines: >> >> $ cd <all-in-one-respository> >> $ hg pull ../cws/os151 >> >> ... the latest changeset of CWS os151 is now tip >> >> $ hg bookmark -r tip os151 >> >> $ hg bookmarks >> os151 276718:f4d674e63830 >> .... > > Great. Thanks for the pointers. > > I'm going to start updating the single-hg.sh (see tools/dev/) with > this stuff. I'd appreciate if you could keep an eye on the commits and > correct me where I stray. I've never used Mercurial before. > > I've read up on the difference between: tags, branches, local tags, > and bookmarks. I agree that it seems bookmarks are appropriate for > this purpose. We could technically use a tag since no further work > would be done in this "single" repository. However, we may be able to > use the bookmarks as an indicator for branch construction (vs a static > copy in tags/). > > I suspect that a lot of work will happen on the Convert extension to > Mercurial to manage this transition :-) > > One more thing... I cloned one of the CWSs (ab78), and it was 2.8 Gb. > My clone of DEV300 is 3.5 Gb. Is the size of that CWS typical? There > are about 250 CWSs hosted at OOo. If the average holds, I would need > to clone 700 Gb of material down to my system to perform the > integration. > > Am I missing something? Is there a better way? etc.
For the size issue, I've been pointed at: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/RelinkExtension Cheers, -g
