Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 24 February 2007 23:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I also tend to think that a conversion will be easier in a year or two
>> than it is today --- the problems noted upthread are certainly a
>> heads-up that cvs2svn is not yet as robust as one could wish.

> Cvs2svn seems to make as much sense of CVS data as possible. The only real 
> problem I have seen is with regard to the malformed files I mentioned 
> earlier. I haven't seen any other concrete examples.

It was mentioned upthread that Josh has seen repeated problems with his
conversions.  I too would like to see some details about that.  One
thing that I personally would find to be a showstopper for any proposed
switch is if it fails to maintain our change histories; in particular,
if it's not still possible to pull an exact copy of any given prior
release, it'll be no sale.  I gather from this thread that svn has by
far the closest storage model to cvs of any of the available
alternatives ... so if svn has conversion problems, what's it gonna
be like with another one?

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to