What do we want to bring from CVS to Subversion
I'm working on the cvs to subversion conversion for the ZODB, Zope 2, and Zope 3 projects. I'm currently doing the conversion of the full history with tags and branches. This is taking a long time and creating a huge repository, which is OK, but, do we really need that much history? I see 3 options: 1. Convert the full history with branches. This will create a rather large and complex repository. 2. Convert the mainline history, but leave off the branches. 3. Start with a clean slate and simply import the current head. Note that, for Zope 2 and ZODB, current maintenance branches will remain in CVS. I think that option 2 provides a nice compromise. The main disadvantage of it is that it will leave current development branches high and dry. I'm not sure how big an issue this is. In theory, these could be committed to the subversion heav via patch files. Thoughts? Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 15:23, Jim Fulton wrote:
2. Convert the mainline history, but leave off the branches.
Would this mean we'd lose the log messages too? If so -1 because often merge messages aren't very helpful. "merged foo-bar-branch to head" would suck if you couldn't at least see the log messages on that branch. Otherwise, -0. Disk is cheap but history priceless. -Barry
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 15:23, Jim Fulton wrote:
2. Convert the mainline history, but leave off the branches.
Would this mean we'd lose the log messages too?
Yes, you'd lose the branch log messages.
If so -1 because often merge messages aren't very helpful. "merged foo-bar-branch to head" would suck if you couldn't at least see the log messages on that branch.
I hate to see merge messages like this. In fact, when people work on branches, I'd like to see the informative messages in the merge not on the branch work. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
Jim Fulton wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 15:23, Jim Fulton wrote:
2. Convert the mainline history, but leave off the branches.
Would this mean we'd lose the log messages too?
Yes, you'd lose the branch log messages.
If so -1 because often
merge messages aren't very helpful. "merged foo-bar-branch to head" would suck if you couldn't at least see the log messages on that branch.
I hate to see merge messages like this. In fact, when people work on branches, I'd like to see the informative messages in the merge not on the branch work.
The reason that I hate merge messages like this is that I find it very difficult to find the branch checkin messages in thye log. It's possible, but so difficult that I generally would rather not bother. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 15:42, Jim Fulton wrote:
The reason that I hate merge messages like this is that I find it very difficult to find the branch checkin messages in thye log. It's possible, but so difficult that I generally would rather not bother.
I agree, but history is history, so we have to live with what we've got in there. Is your only objection the disk space it consumes? -Barry
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 15:42, Jim Fulton wrote:
The reason that I hate merge messages like this is that I find it very difficult to find the branch checkin messages in thye log. It's possible, but so difficult that I generally would rather not bother.
I agree, but history is history, so we have to live with what we've got in there. Is your only objection the disk space it consumes?
And the complexity in the resulting repository and the conversion times. I suspect that copying everything will take a couple of days. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 15:23, Jim Fulton wrote:
2. Convert the mainline history, but leave off the branches.
Would this mean we'd lose the log messages too? If so -1 because often merge messages aren't very helpful. "merged foo-bar-branch to head" would suck if you couldn't at least see the log messages on that branch.
Otherwise, -0. Disk is cheap but history priceless.
You aren't counting the cost of clutter. Option 3 says "history prior to the CVS -> SVN migration remains in CVS". We are committed to leaving the existing CVS repository in place *forever* (or until the 2.7 branch dies, whichever comes first ;). -1 on merging *any* history prior to the creation of the 2.7 branch to SVN; -0 on merging the mainline since then. Tres. -- =============================================================== Tres Seaver tseaver@zope.com Zope Corporation "Zope Dealers" http://www.zope.com
On Monday 26 April 2004 03:23 pm, Jim Fulton wrote:
2. Convert the mainline history, but leave off the branches.
This sounds good to me. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at zope.com> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm working on the cvs to subversion conversion for the ZODB, Zope 2, and Zope 3 projects. I'm currently doing the conversion of the full history with tags and branches. This is taking a long time and creating a huge repository, which is OK, but, do we really need that much history?
I see 3 options:
1. Convert the full history with branches. This will create a rather large and complex repository.
2. Convert the mainline history, but leave off the branches.
3. Start with a clean slate and simply import the current head.
Note that, for Zope 2 and ZODB, current maintenance branches will remain in CVS.
I think that option 2 provides a nice compromise. The main disadvantage of it is that it will leave current development branches high and dry. I'm not sure how big an issue this is. In theory, these could be committed to the subversion heav via patch files.
Thoughts?
I'm going to go with option 2. We won't lose anything, as we'll still have the existing tag and branch data in CVS as a permanent record. Just before conversion, I'll also tag the head. This will be useful for computing patch sets for open CVS workspaces and development branches. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
participants (4)
-
Barry Warsaw -
Fred Drake -
Jim Fulton -
Tres Seaver