RE: [Monotone-devel] Re: newbie: Life after cvs-import

[Kelly F. Hickel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden On
Behalf Of
> Bruce Stephens
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 4:44 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [Monotone-devel] Re: newbie: Life after cvs-import
> 
> "Kelly F. Hickel" <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 2) How can we be reasonably certain that mtn imported useful things
> > from cvs? My coworker is of the opinion that since importing
> > everything leads to a big database (1gb), and we can't be sure it
> > imported "everything correctly" that we're better off junking all
> > the history, that way nothing will bite us in the end.
> 
> Well, quite: how do you test?
> 
> At work we're considering the same question (and have been for a few
> years now).  We've got a largish (1.9G), old, complex CVS repository,
> at least some of which we need to keep around (we have customers still
> using releases from a few years ago, and we need to be able to support
> them).
> 
> But everyone can see that something other than CVS might offer some
> benefits (tracking renames of files, for one thing).  The question's
> whether changing is worth the inevitable pain.
> 
> Obviously the front-runner is subversion (it's the least-frightening
> option, <http://keithp.com/blog/Tyrannical_SCM_selection.html>): lots
> of people use it, it'll work well on Windows, and it's got a decent
> chance of importing our repository bug-compatibly with the CVS one.
> 
> But cvs2svn produces warnings, saying that some versions already have
> a branch symbol, so it's dropping the later one.  (Dropping the
> earlier one would seem likely to be better, but never mind.)  That
> kind of thing.
> 
> I'm reasonably confident that the resulting repository contains all
> that we're likely to care about, but how can we be sure?
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'm with your coworker: make a switch, keeping the CVS
> repository for history, and switch to something else for the future,
> importing whatever of the history seems practical and useful.  Apart
> from anything else, that should give you more options: you can
> rearrange the way you store things, you don't need to pick subversion
> (because subversion is the only thing capable of importing CVS well
> enough), etc.

[Kelly F. Hickel] One of the problems that I have with this, is *when*
do you switch?  There's no point in time where we don't have active
branches, so that means that most developers will be working in both cvs
and mtn, which I see as prone to errors.  Nevermind that it's more work
to deal getting updates into mboth systems, being reasonably sure
they're right in both, full testing and so on, and so on....

-Kelly
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Monotone-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel