[Monotone-devel] Re: A better approach for cvs->mtn?

[Bruce Stephens]

Larry Hastings <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

> So why not piggy-back on its success?  Skip "cvs2mtn"; instead
> create "svn2mtn", or enhance tailor's support for svn->monotone
> conversion as needed.  Then declare the first step in the official
> "cvs2mtn" conversion process is "convert to Subversion"!  This seems
> like the best bang-for-the-buck approach, getting rock-solid
> migration for both CVS /and/ SVN to monotone--which I'm guessing are
> the top two SCMs these days.

It's been suggested before, yes.  It may well be a little easier, in
that at least there are APIs for accessing subversion (so you don't
need to worry about parsing CVS files).

I'm not entirely convinced it'll help that much: if cvs2svn does a
good job then it'll be producing a subversion repository which is also
a wretched hive of inconsistency (with tags made up of files from
different branches, etc.).  Subversion has the advantage in that it
can represent such things, whereas other systems (like monotone) just
can't.