[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bzr repository ready?
From: |
Karl Fogel |
Subject: |
Re: bzr repository ready? |
Date: |
Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:38:11 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
Thanks for the analysis, Andreas. There appear to be no problems here.
You're right, I forgot about vendor branches (that part wasn't really a
script, I just of waved 'sed' and Emacs macros around in various ways,
but I forgot to account for vendor branch numbers).
-Karl
Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:
> Karl Fogel <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> $ diff -u cvs-all-tags bzr-all-tags | grep "^[+-]"
>> --- cvs-all-tags 2009-11-18 14:54:59.000000000 -0500
>> +++ bzr-all-tags 2009-11-18 15:13:28.000000000 -0500
>> -DAVELOVE
>> +EMACS_20_1
>> +EMACS_20_3
>> -FLYSPELL
>> -ILYA
>> -mh-e-8_1
>> -mh-e-8_2
>> -mh-e-doc-8_1
>> -mh-e-doc-8_2
>> -raeburn-tag-3-for-export
>> -small-dump-base
>> -URL
>
> The raeburn-tag-3-for-export tag only exist in three files, two of which
> are not *,v files. The third file does no longer contain the revision
> that this tag is referencing. So for all practical purpose, this tag
> does not exist. The other missing tags (except for those that appear as
> branches, see below) are due to bugs/limitations in cvsps and
> inconsistent tagging (parsecvs can handle them much better). I will
> have to manually add them to the git and bzr repo.
>
>> The two tags that are present in Bazaar but not CVS are particularly
>> mystifying to me. While 'EMACS_20_1' and 'EMACS_20_3' appear in
>> 'bzr tags' in trunk, they do not appear in 'cvs log' output from the
>> top of the CVS tree. I do not know where bzr got those tags from.
>> Since the CVS tag (e.g.) EMACS_20_2 exists, it is reasonable to
>> conclude that bzr is crazy and is getting _1 and _3 from somewhere.
>> But where?
>
> Those are tags that I added manually. I don't think that creates any
> problems, other tags have been retroactively added in the past.
>
>> * Check that all branches are present. [?]
>>
>> diff -u cvs-all-branches.out bzr-branches | grep "^[-+]"
>> --- cvs-all-branches.out 2009-11-18 16:52:50.000000000 -0500
>> +++ bzr-branches 2009-11-18 16:52:45.000000000 -0500
>> +Boehm-versions
>> +DAVELOVE
>> +FLYSPELL
>> +ILYA
>> +URL
>> -cedet-branch
>> -emacs-unicode
>
> In my git repository, I created merge commits that merges the heads of
> cedet-branch and emacs-unicode branch into the trunk and the
> emacs-unicode-2 branch, resp. Apparently bzr-fast-import does not
> create a separate branch in such an event, but all the revisions are
> present and referenced by the merge commit. That is, if you removed the
> cedet-branch and emacs-unicode heads from the git repo no commit would
> become unreferenced.
>
>> "The Boehm-versions branch was a short-lived branch containing only
>> a gc directory. It appears to be a mistaken checkin, the commit
>> that deleted the files has the log message 'Not committed to
>> branch, sorry.'."
>
> Actually the Boehm-versions branch is a real branch in CVS, and I have
> no idea why it doesn't appear in your list. The files that are
> referenced by this branch also appeared for a single revision on the
> trunk, and were subsequently moved to the Boehm-GC branch.
>
>> He also said: "The Ilya_4_35 branch appears to be the result of
>> another git->bzr conversion bug. It is an ordinary tag in git." I
>> wonder if the same applies to ILYA now? I could find out, but I'm
>> just going to send this mail now because I've been poking around in
>> CVS all day and I want to share some results!
>
> Those extra branches are vendor branches. They have very special
> revision numbers (uneven number of digits, usually 1.1.1) that your
> script miscategorized as non-branches.
>
> Andreas.
- Re: Making the tarball with bzr data, (continued)
- Re: Making the tarball with bzr data, Óscar Fuentes, 2009/11/30
- Re: Making the tarball with bzr data, Jason Earl, 2009/11/30
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Stefan Monnier, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Chong Yidong, 2009/11/18
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Stefan Monnier, 2009/11/18
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Andreas Schwab, 2009/11/18
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Ken Raeburn, 2009/11/19
- Re: bzr repository ready?,
Karl Fogel <=
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/11/20
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Karl Fogel, 2009/11/20
Re: bzr repository ready?, Karl Fogel, 2009/11/09
Re: bzr repository ready?, Karl Fogel, 2009/11/22
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Lennart Borgman, 2009/11/22
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Karl Fogel, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Karl Fogel, 2009/11/23