Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On ons, 2010-05-12 at 16:11 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Of course, we might also find some other brokenness if we try to import
all the tags. Also, be aware of this (from
<http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/cvs2git.html>):
Differences between CVS and git branch/tag models: CVS allows a
branch or tag to be created from arbitrary combinations of source
revisions from multiple source branches. It even allows file
revisions that were never contemporaneous to be added to a single
branch/tag. Git, on the other hand, only allows the full source
tree, as it existed at some instant in the history, to be branched
or tagged as a unit. Moreover, the ancestry of a git revision makes
implications about the contents of that revision. This difference
means that it is fundamentally impossible to represent an arbitrary
CVS history in a git repository 100% faithfully.
Right, and omitting tags was in fact one of the "features" of fromcvs
that made us use it, because any tool that tries to convert tags will
explode on our CVS tree, for reasons explained in the above paragraph.
We have also discussed this in more detail about three times before.
Well, yes, but I have been wondering if this has to be an all or nothing
deal. How many tags can we not tie to a known tree in git? My suspicion
is we can probably identify most of them quite well. If we can that
would be nice.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
