On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Niall Douglas
On 15 Oct 2013 at 13:59, Beman Dawes wrote:
I agree about switching just after a release, but it's not ready for primetime yet IMHO.
Is that a general concern, or are there specific issues you are worried about?
It's the hideous complexity of doing a perfect conversion, not specific issues.
We are not trying to do a perfect conversion. We are trying to do a reasonably good conversion and then move on. We want files to appear in the right places, we want to retain history at least for trunk and branches/release, and we want a few other things. But mostly we want to move on and put the conversion behind us. Remember that we will be doing nothing that degrades the svn repo. It will be available for years and years into the future.
One way I have not previously mentioned here is rebuilding the existing SVN repo to rectify unfortunate historical commits which make perfect git conversion very hard. I know Dave is opposed to this solution, and it certainly launches yet another new tool for converting SVN to cleaner-SVN. But it might be less work overall.
Less work that what? I can't see how adding an additional step to build a new svn repo and then converting that could possibly be less work that finishing off the work that has already been done, and getting on with the actual conversion. <snip> ... three possible approaches ... </snip> All I'm seeing is additional complexity and few if any benefits. It is one thing to fix any remaining glitches, but quite another to re-engineer the whole process because there is fear it might have hidden problems. --Beman