This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Repository for the conversion machinery
Jason Merrill <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > I've used both git-svn (sometimes with git filter-branch) and reposurgeon
> > for repository conversions. My experience is that if there's anything at
> > all complicated or messy about the history, using git-svn for the
> > conversion is not a good idea, so I don't think that's an attractive
> > option at all.
> But we're already using git-svn, and it's fine.
My hair stands on end when I hear anyone say that. git-svn is tolerable,
if a bit flaky, for live gatewaying. It is *dangerous* for whole-history
conversions. I wrote a public-service announcement about this a while back.
Don’t do svn-to-git repository conversions with git-svn!
It should be more widely known that git-svn is bad in this mode; it's
not because on small, linear or near-linear repos without operator
errors or CVS-conversion scar tissues it happens to work reasonably
well. GCC is not in this category.
> Specifically, reposurgeon doesn't like subdirectory branches much more
> than git-svn does, though I was able to work around that with
> branchify (and some fixes in reposurgeon). It discards branches with
> no additional commits, and keeps other branches that were deleted in
> SVN, though I was able to work around this with a postprocessing
> Most significantly, it fails to handle some commits (I noticed r137307
> and r131989), leading to incorrect file content at the top of the
> affected branches. This is the issue that I didn't hear back from
> Eric about, which led me to consider other approaches. Fortunately it
> marked them (as well as many others) with emptycommit tags for review.
> But if you want to do it with reposurgeon, I won't complain. I've
> pushed my WIP to https://github.com/jicama/gcc-reposurgeon
This is my fault. I think you hit that bug right around one of the times I
was being most distracted by NTPsec, and I somehow formed the mistaken
impression you had gotten past it.
I'll get back on this. I still have your bug report in my back mail; the
first thing I need to do is fix that. Can't promise immediate action, I'm
preparing for the 1.0 release of NTPsec (spent the last week mostly
clearing our issue list) but now that I know this is unfinished I won't
drop it until it is.
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>