Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Request for help adding monotone output to cvs2svn

[Michael Haggerty]

Bruce Stephens wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> (I've already made this offer [to cooperate in adding mtn support to
>> cvs2svn] to Markus Schiltknecht but he doesn't seem interested.)
> 
> I suspect because cvs2svn isn't incremental.  So it's a way to do a
> one-time conversion of a CVS repository, but many people really want
> to do incremental conversions, following a CVS repository as it
> changes.

That's right, cvs2svn doesn't do incremental conversions.

> However, it clearly has a place.  It's pretty fast, and as you say,
> copes with all the horrors of CVS.
> 
> And the new version does a decent conversion to at least git (which is
> close enough to mercurial/monotone/etc.), though I think it creates
> many unnecessary branches.  (This is a specifically git thing, and I
> guess is a matter of taste.  I think cvs2svn is creating branches in
> order to construct revisions corresponding to CVS tags.  But then from
> git's point of view the branch doesn't really need a name, since the
> tag's pointing to it.  So I think I'd leave off the branch.)
> 
> [...]

cvs2svn added the unnecessary branch names because of a bug in
git-fast-import.  I think that problem is fixed, but I haven't gotten
around to changing cvs2svn.

More interesting is whether the branches have to be created at all for
CVS (non-branch) tags.  Presumably people often tag a whole repository
snapshot in CVS, in which case the original branch could be tagged
rather than creating a synthetic branch only to tag it.  I'm currently
working on code to avoid unnecessary branches for git.  (I don't know
whether monotone makes the same distinction.)

Michael