Re: Can you move the 'database' package to mercurial?

[Carnë Draug]

On 28 February 2016 at 16:50, Olaf Till <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:12:16AM +0000, Carnë Draug wrote:
>> It is done. You should have both database and database-postgresql history
>> there, albeit with some caveats (see below).
>>
>> On 27 February 2016 at 21:23, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > I use `hg convert` instead. I have an svn checkout "OF", which I've
>> > converted into an hg repo "OF-hg". I can incrementally do `hg convert
>> > OF OF-hg` to turn new svn commits into hg commits. I just did that and
>> > pushed it to hg.octave.org
>> >
>>
>> Is "hg convert" supposed to follow files across file copies?  It seems that
>> didn't work.  Example, the current "main/database/INDEX" was a copy of a
>> previous "main/database-postgresql/INDEX" file:
>>
>>     $ svn log -v main/database/INDEX
>>     [...]
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     r11580 | i7tiol | 2013-01-16 06:17:06 +0000 (Wed, 16 Jan 2013) | 1 line
>>     Changed paths:
>>     [...]
>>        A /trunk/octave-forge/main/database/INDEX (from
>> /trunk/octave-forge/main/database-postgresql/INDEX:11578)
>>     [...]
>>     Populated new database package with initial postgresql interface.
>>     [...]
>>
>> But when checking the mercurial repository, even with '--follow', it
>> does not go in there.  The first changeset from that file is the one
>> above.
>
> Thanks, Carnë and Jordi.
>
> But, Carnë, you want a perfect solution by including the history of
> 'database-postgresql' also. But the latter history essentially only
> consists of the initial commit, no file has ever been modified there,
> the files were transfered to 'database' as they were.
>
> I'd say, from the view of revision history, we should just forget
> 'database-postgresql', it's not worth the effort. The move-up of files
> at the current end of 'database' history, and the necessity to use
> '--follow' due to this move-up, are more awkward than losing the
> actually redundant initial commit of 'database-postgresql', IMO.
>
> For the sake of logging the more general 'history', we probably could
> do an empty commit at the current end of 'database', in which we state
> which information was lost due to conversion to mercurial, mentioning
> the one or two commits of 'database-postgresql'?
>

If there's only one commit, then ok.  I can make a new repository that
really only has "main/database".  I have prepared one now and can replace
the one I did yesterday.  Would you prefer that?

Carnë