On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Frank Loeffler <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am curious which steps have to be manual. If this is already a problem > for CactusBase - how much of a problem will it be for larger > repositories? CactusBase is probably one of the "better behaved" > places. > The manual steps are to fix some minor inherent issues with the repositories, most of which seem to be a result of the CVS->SVN transition. I'm calling them minor as none of them affect the trunk/master branch or any of the Cactus or ET release branches. Some examples can be seen in the Cartoon2D repository < https://bitbucket.org/cactuscode/cactusnumerical-cartoon2d/commits/all?page=5 >: * There are extra branches (e.g. start, v1) which are not in any way connected to the rest of the history. These were created by the cvs2svn script. * Some of the commits creating tags also introduce changes to the tree (files). These commits were automatically created by the cvs2svn script. * Some branches/tags (e.g. STABLE, LATEST) were not created at the same time across different repositories. None of the ones that I encountered had what I would useful content (e.g. having a STABLE tag pointing to some point long in the past is not particularly useful). The reason these steps are manual is it because they require human intervention to determine whether the issues are important or can be ignored. Could you suggest an example of a more "badly behaved" arrangement? Barry
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
