Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:05:50PM +0200, I wrote: > replace every ChangeLog file's content with information about how to get > back its former content, and that later in time the Git commit messages > are correct. This is now done; thanks to Olaf for suggesting a more straightforward word

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 08:31:09AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:00:52PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:05:50PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > +After commit e227045b06d62ee7d2fbab9d5ade9030ff43170b, Git's > > > commit m

Re: Moving to git

Hello, On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 12:43:37PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 12:30:20PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 06:24:36AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > >

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 12:30:20PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 06:24:36AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > Please note that most of my commits to nsmux repository are ugly. Is > > > that ok

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:00:52PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:05:50PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > +After commit e227045b06d62ee7d2fbab9d5ade9030ff43170b, Git's commit > > messages > > +are valid. > > Is it really *after*, or starting with?...

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:05:50PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > +After commit e227045b06d62ee7d2fbab9d5ade9030ff43170b, Git's commit messages > +are valid. Is it really *after*, or starting with?... A less ambiguous wording would be preferable :-) -antrik-

Re: Moving to git

Hello, On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 06:24:36AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > Please note that most of my commits to nsmux repository are ugly. Is > > that okay?.. Or should I refactor them somehow? > > Well, the code certainl

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > Please note that most of my commits to nsmux repository are ugly. Is > that okay?.. Or should I refactor them somehow? Well, the code certainly should be fixed, according to what you learned in the meanwhile. As for the histor

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, I wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:39:48AM +0200, I wrote: > > Here is one additional topic I want to confirm with you all before > > committing it: the duplication of ChangeLog snippets and commit log > > messages is a pain. However, it is not

Re: Moving to git

Hello, On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:20:01PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > Please note that most of my commits to nsmux repository are ugly. Is > > that okay?.. Or should I refactor them somehow? > > > > I'd also be happy to be giv

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:56:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:05:30AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:17:03PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > I'm sorry for being dumb, but I'd like to avoid misunderstandings: is > > > it t

Re: Moving to git

Hello, On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:05:30AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:17:03PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > I'm sorry for being dumb, but I'd like to avoid misunderstandings: is > > it true that it is being suggested that my nsmux github repository be > > m

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:17:03PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > I'm sorry for being dumb, but I'd like to avoid misunderstandings: is > it true that it is being suggested that my nsmux github repository be > moved to Savannah? Or, even more, am I supposed to create a branch in > the Hurd git

Re: Moving to git

Hello, On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:29:50PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:25:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > Also, I'll add branches for the former GSoC projects -- are there > > > any

Re: Moving to git

Am Mittwoch, 24. Juni 2009 15:23:29 schrieb Thomas Schwinge: > So, to sum up: after the cut-off point, everything is as expected, and > before the cut-off point, the Git committer information is useless, and > the Git author information is the CVS commiter information, and the > changes' author inf

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:25:34PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Olaf asked whether we could fix the author and committer information > > for the changesets. This can't be done reliably in an automated way > > a

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:25:01PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Also, I'll add branches for the former GSoC projects -- are there > > any former GSoC people (CCed) who already have done their work > > somewhere else than in

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Olaf asked whether we could fix the author and committer information > for the changesets. This can't be done reliably in an automated way > and surely no one wants to inspect 10,000+ changesets manually. As I > consider a c

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Fetch the whole shebang from . > Give it a try. Unless someone finds any issues that really need to be > corrected, these trees shall be the new basis for our collaboration! Nicely done

Re: Moving to git

Hello, On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Later, I'll push a few branches containing Hurd patches applied (libpager > / ext2fs extensions, TLS support, ...), so that these can be easily > merged into your local working branches. Also, I'll add branches for the > fo

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:39:48AM +0200, I wrote: > A bit of a status update. ... and again -- perhaps that last one? > The CVS to Git conversion is mostly finished. > > There are still some quirks with converting the > gnumach-1-branch-Xen-branch, but I'm working on resolving these wit

Re: Moving to git

> Here is one additional topic I want to confirm with you all before > committing it: the duplication of ChangeLog snippets and commit log > messages is a pain. However, it is not mandatory to maintain ChangeLog > files in the VCS sources -- it's fine with the GNU Coding Standards to > only create

Re: Moving to git

Hello! A bit of a status update. The CVS to Git conversion is mostly finished. There are still some quirks with converting the gnumach-1-branch-Xen-branch, but I'm working on resolving these with the help of the conversion program's author, Simon 'corecode' Schubert, whose fromcvs / rcsparse com

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 04:33:51AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 06:11:07PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > And I'm seeing the same (I think) problems: converting gnumach with > > git-cvsimport will yield an unusable gnumach-1-branch -- on which you > > w

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 06:11:07PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > And I'm seeing the same (I think) problems: converting gnumach with > git-cvsimport will yield an unusable gnumach-1-branch -- on which you > would still find all the oskit files that are not present in the CVS > branch. [...]

Re: Moving to git

Am Samstag 28 Februar 2009 18:11:07 schrieb Thomas Schwinge: > branch. Guillem suggested using cvs2svn and then git svn clone, but that > has problems of its own: it at least misconverts the release tags that Recent versions of cvs2svn also offer the script cvs2git which can create a repository

Re: Moving to git

Hi Thomas, Thomas Schwinge writes: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 07:20:01PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> We converted Guile's CVS repo (where there were a number of branches, >> several of which were active) to Git several months ago. The first >> attempt used `git-cvsimport' and was a failure

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 07:20:01PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Roland McGrath writes: > > But AFAIK git-cvsimport alone is easy enough to get right. It works well for MIG and Hurd itself, but chokes on the gnumach repo. > We converted Guile's CVS repo (where there were a number of br

Re: Moving to git

Hello, Roland McGrath writes: > But AFAIK git-cvsimport alone is easy enough to get right. We converted Guile's CVS repo (where there were a number of branches, several of which were active) to Git several months ago. The first attempt used `git-cvsimport' and was a failure, because this tool

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:41:39PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > That libpthread should be split of (before doing the conversion) is OK > for everyone? No, better do it afterwards. I allows us to postpone the decision whether to preserve full history or not: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:50:

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:50:58PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:38:20AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > The old CVS repositories will of course remain available for history > inspectio

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:50:58PM +0100, I wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:38:20AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > Only convert GNU Mach's gnumach-1-branch, GNU MIG's HEAD, GNU Hurd's > > > HEAD. > > > >

Re: Moving to git

At Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:50:58 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > Rationale: split as far as it's still making sense. There is no > > > reason to have an interger hashing library, a pthread > > > implementation, an ext2 file system interpreter, libc amendments, > > > Hurd interfaces

Re: Moving to git

Thomas Schwinge, le Sun 11 Jan 2009 12:41:45 +0100, a écrit : > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:43:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Oops, as I don't really care whether CVS/svn/git/whatever is used, I > > overlooked this thread > > That's why I addressed this email directly to you. Perhaps you c

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:05:52PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote: > Olaf said some of the things I was thinking. When replying there, I hope to have addressed your concerns as well. > In short, I think this plan is too clever by half. Thanks ;-). Indeed I spent some time on this issue, be

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:38:20AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Only convert GNU Mach's gnumach-1-branch, GNU MIG's HEAD, GNU Hurd's > > HEAD. > > > > With the exception of the GNU Mach Xen branch and the H

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 05:25:55PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote: > Jim Meyering has done the cvs->git work for various things on sourceware. > (As I recommended for Hurd some months ago, this can be done in a > noncommittal way before switching from cvs for commits to existing > branches.)

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:43:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Oops, as I don't really care whether CVS/svn/git/whatever is used, I > overlooked this thread That's why I addressed this email directly to you. Perhaps you can get such mails appear with a higher score in your mailer than

Re: Moving to git

Jim Meyering has done the cvs->git work for various things on sourceware. (As I recommended for Hurd some months ago, this can be done in a noncommittal way before switching from cvs for commits to existing branches.) He can give you pointers. But AFAIK git-cvsimport alone is easy enough to get r

Re: Moving to git

Am Freitag 09 Januar 2009 23:05:52 schrieb Roland McGrath: > Repository conversion is repository conversion.  It's not an opportunity to > rejigger the history.  It's a fundamental failure of what the repository is > there for if it loses or divides the history.  There is no problem with the > size

Re: Moving to git

Hi Thomas. Olaf said some of the things I was thinking. In short, I think this plan is too clever by half. Repository conversion is repository conversion. It's not an opportunity to rejigger the history. It's a fundamental failure of what the repository is there for if it loses or divides the h

Re: Moving to git

Hello, Oops, as I don't really care whether CVS/svn/git/whatever is used, I overlooked this thread olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Fri 09 Jan 2009 09:38:20 +0100, a écrit : > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > For the GNU Mach Xen branch, I'd like Samuel to tell

Re: Moving to git

Hi, On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Only convert GNU Mach's gnumach-1-branch, GNU MIG's HEAD, GNU Hurd's > HEAD. > > With the exception of the GNU Mach Xen branch and the Hurd GSoC > branches, these are the only branches that see active development. So

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 09:36:25AM +0100, I wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:12:21AM +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote: > > I'd like to propose that we move from CVS to git. > > I intend to do the repository conversion until the end of this year. Well, that didn't work out, but here is my

Re: Moving to git

Am Montag 08 Dezember 2008 09:36:25 schrieb Thomas Schwinge: > Hello! > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:12:21AM +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote: > > I'd like to propose that we move from CVS to git. > > I intend to do the repository conversion until the end of this year. Since the niches definitely sho

Re: Moving to git

Hello! On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:12:21AM +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote: > I'd like to propose that we move from CVS to git. I intend to do the repository conversion until the end of this year. Regards, Thomas signature.asc Description: Digital signature