> On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 23:30 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> > BTW, something that first surprises me is that cvs2git doesn't convert
>> > each cvs branch in a git branch. It does that because the cvs branch was
>> > not used, hence it is not needed. We could create the branch afterwards
>> > if we need it.
>>
>> Question is, actually there are branches in the cvs repository.
>>
>> [t-ishii@localhost pgpool-II]$ cvs status README
>> ===================================================================
>> File: README Status: Up-to-date
>>
>> Working revision: 1.2
>> Repository revision: 1.2 /cvsroot/pgpool/pgpool-II/README,v
>> Sticky Tag: V3_1_STABLE (branch: 1.2.14)
>> Sticky Date: (none)
>> Sticky Options: (none)
>>
>> Why do you think that branch was not used?
>>
>
> It didn't speak about that branch (obviously because it didn't exist at
> the time).
You are right about this particular branch. But how about this?
[check out V2_2_STABLE branch]
[t-ishii@localhost pgpool-II]$ cvs status pool_process_query.c
===================================================================
File: pool_process_query.c Status: Up-to-date
Working revision: 1.141.2.39
Repository revision: 1.141.2.39
/cvsroot/pgpool/pgpool-II/pool_process_query.c,v
Sticky Tag: V2_2_STABLE (branch: 1.141.2)
Sticky Date: (none)
Sticky Options: (none)
[t-ishii@localhost pgpool-II]$ cvs log pool_process_query.c
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgpool/pgpool-II/pool_process_query.c,v
Working file: pool_process_query.c
head: 1.268
branch:
locks: strict
access list:
symbolic names:
V3_1_STABLE: 1.267.0.2
V3_1_0: 1.267
[snip]
V2_2_5: 1.141.2.22
V2_2_4: 1.141.2.18
V2_2_3: 1.141.2.15
V2_2_2: 1.141.2.4
V2_2_1: 1.141.2.3
V2_2_0: 1.141
V2_2_STABLE: 1.141.0.2
[snip]
----------------------------
revision 1.141
date: 2009/02/24 02:20:40; author: t-ishii; state: Exp; lines: +34 -6
branches: 1.141.2;
Prpare for receiving parameter status packets.
[snip]
Apparently V2_2_STABLE branch was there when you posted original message.
>> Anyway, if cvs2git does not convert each branch in a git branch, thing
>> goes worst. Because any changes which are newer than HEAD made to a
>> branch are lost in the converted git repository.
>
> It does the work all right.
>
>
> --
> Guillaume
> http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
> http://www.dalibo.com
>
_______________________________________________
Pgpool-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-hackers
