Francesco Romani wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 22:35 +0100, Francesco Romani wrote: > > > One suggestion I do have, if you take the full-repository route, is to > > > use Subversion as an intermediate stage--that is, convert the current > > > CVS to svn, and then convert that svn repository to hg. I've found > > > cvs2svn to work much better than hg convert on a CVS repository. > > > > Sounds sensible, I'll go this way. > > Err, actually, I'd _like_ to go this way: just noticed this line > > It is not possible to convert a CVS repository to which you only have > remote access; > > into the cvs2svn manpage :)
It doesn't cost anything to keep the old cvs repo around read-only and just move the current version to svn, hg, or whatever. The old official release tarballs can be checked in to the new binary-friendly repo without a problem.
