Re: [Monotone-devel] cvsimport branch reconstruction

[Markus Schiltknecht]

Hi,

well, that just once again tells me how important CVS import is :-).
If you are brave, you can try my revision 
81b2c35092f7b912b94d462d35cd6285e46b8621 of my current work in:
n.v.m.cvsimport-branch-reconstruction.

If you have a reasonably clean CVS repository (no hand editing done, 
server date/time always set properly), that could work quite well.

I do have some spare time to work on the cvsimport feature of monotone 
this and the next week. I hope to be able to prepare the branch 
reconstruction feature for landing... but there are still some 
uncertainties concerning the algorithm, so you never know.

Regards

Markus

Juan Jose Comellas wrote:
> I'm experimenting with a repository for a client of mine, which has about 6 
> years of commits. If everything goes well I also plan to migrate my company's 
> repository, which is fairly big. I'm currently evaluating Monotone, Darcs and 
> Mercurial as replacements for CVS, because I don't want to spend a single 
> extra second working (suffering?) with it. Our current workflow requires easy 
> branching, merging and cherry picking. I haven't decided yet, but right now 
> my first option is Monotone, which I have been using for smaller projects for 
> over a year, closely followed by Darcs.
>
> So far, my lists of pros and cons are:
>
> Monotone:
> Pros: Great merging algorithm; very reliable (it has never corrupted my 
> repository/DB); clean source code and written in a language I know.
> Cons: Slow on some operations and for initial pulls, especially with big 
> repositories; not very flexible for external I/O (lack of support for HTTP as 
> transport protocol); complex setup when having multiple DBs and a single port 
> for connections.
>
> Darcs: 
> Pros: Great support for cherry picking; has a set of more mature third-party 
> tools (Eclipse plugin, Trac integration, etc.); seems to be the one with the 
> biggest mindshare; very flexible for external communications.
> Cons: The exponential complexity of some of its algorithms and the possibility 
> of having it freeze in the middle of a process are not very comforting, 
> written in a language I don't know.
>
> Mercurial: 
> Pros: Incredibly fast; very flexible for external communications; written in a 
> language I know.
> Cons: I have managed to corrupt my repository doing normal operations; merging 
> is always a hassle (i.e. I end up doing a lot of manual merging).
>
>
>
> On Tue September 12 2006 13:38, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Juan Jose Comellas wrote:
> > > Would you recommend using cvsimport instead of tailor to migrate a big
> > > CVS repository to Monotone?
> > I'm trying to improve cvsimport because tailor didn't fit my needs (I
> > want branches correctly imported, no changed changelog entries and .. no
> > crashes on import ;-).
> >
> > However, cvsimport is still lacking branch reconstruction. If you only
> > need to import the CVS HEAD branch, give it a try.
> >
> > What repository do you experiment with? An open source one?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Markus