I think that the desire to have a full history is a serious one. I fancy Michael's option 3 (that which shall not be numbered [;<). It sounds like the least that could possibly work, so it strikes me as an important approach to consider, especially if it sheds critical path for getting the code base to Apache in useful form.
I don't have any insight into the ability to continue massaging that Hg/git into an SVN that could be merged later, but it seems desirable to have anyhow. Maybe Ben knows about prospects like that also. The only problem I would foresee has to do with any material in the Hg/git repo that is not part of the Apache license grant and that has some sort of Apache incompatibility. I haven't followed the analysis by Marcus closely enough to know how much that is a problem. And these are completely armchair observations ... - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Michael Stahl [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 14:27 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: single repository status [ ... ] basically we have these options for converting to SVN: 1. convert full history requires writing tool to create SVN branches and mergeinfo 2. convert trunk only, using follow-first-parent heuristic with hacks where we want to follow second parent instead 3. no history in SVN, just check in OOO340 tip option 1. seems to be too much effort to me, and would have to be implemented by a real SVN wizard. option 2. requires some effort, but should be doable; we still lose all CWS internal history though (e.g. CWS undoapi becomes a single 57,788 line changeset against 562 files). after thinking about it for a while, a trunk-only history in SVN doesn't seem to be all that useful to me (you need to go over the network to access something incomplete...). far more useful would be to have a read-only HG/git repository available that contains the _full_ history and all open CWS branches, which can be cloned and examined off-line. opinions? regards, michael
