From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 102139 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2019 17:31:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 102111 invoked by uid 89); 4 Nov 2019 17:31:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=raymond, Fixing, recreation, branchpoints X-HELO: esa2.mentor.iphmx.com Received: from esa2.mentor.iphmx.com (HELO esa2.mentor.iphmx.com) (68.232.141.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 17:31:13 +0000 IronPort-SDR: RFSTfsZmuluQ6yN6+Jbt5r3cOLg+ClfkDAX1LcjybFWpDbRxE6SFdmGgl482+ApKfBaP2n5GxJ WSGxhl87hCbswtaiY2pFapNhMGa4X3hVJRkBp5q6bqoBBHr8LuvsiWvtdRDorabiJL71LtKtNP QiemTDREC6j4gax8GAvHswX5CvvU6n5SL+g8Hv+c/339aYOnhFnRPA8kD/gxzNsOsCbp7Q8bXi LruOXPIu6NI2vHkS1NV4vcCp1z0JZhfO/E766GBPfLaETij3uA5WdyejR2wg9ytIUXsvyb/pjc v/M= Received: from orw-gwy-02-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.167]) by esa2.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2019 09:31:11 -0800 IronPort-SDR: pOh576wkN3ot7mNZtQIeP6vFMla55EyzF1x4HP182tlB85kBYFUJUxj2pJJQs5R2Z57d/8RyQI AD4ne/PyaSgY2ZKZ38FLayKOrLS8VM36Nfwfsg86vhWZC5f4o/YTP9VlHuo+jqg+PcVZoJ/szT Ut/iLe0AcwHpr2dePb3EdH/RbdBR90hpV9W8GjCQ5C8uMZyyYpw4b/asE7FnXYQ+gtpWs0XMst lV00XlUnJnIkVrnBoh836iHeYBmdN2qIHSJJaYZ0Bs+CGqCEsol4JEDtX0GmQg5iRcr493+4uT HNQ= Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 17:31:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: "Eric S. Raymond" CC: Subject: Re: Fixing cvs2svn branchpoints In-Reply-To: <20191102163049.GA39351@thyrsus.com> Message-ID: References: <20191101044518.GA95565@thyrsus.com> <20191102163049.GA39351@thyrsus.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Return-Path: joseph@codesourcery.com X-SW-Source: 2019-11/txt/msg00029.txt.bz2 On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Joseph Myers : > > And here are corresponding lists of tags where the commit cvs2svn > > generated for the tag should be reparented. > > Make that issue 2, please. Done. > Also, open an issue 3 about how you want those > mid-branch deletes handled. I agree that the right thing is just to nuke > them, but I have a lot of plates in the air right now... Which mid-branch deletes? For the ones by accident (e.g. the deletions of trunk), where the branch was recreated by copying from the pre-deletion version of the same branch, nuking the deletes is clearly right. For the ones where a branch was deleted then recreated as a copy not from the deleted version - essentially, rebasing done in SVN - maybe we need community discussion of the right approach. (There are two plausible approaches there - either just discard all the deleted versions that aren't part of the SVN history of the most recent creation of the branch, which makes the list of commits in the branch's history in git look similar to what it looks like in SVN, or treat deletion + recreation in that case as some kind of merge.) > Also please open reposurgeon issues about the svnmerge properties As I understand it, support for that has now been implemented. > and the missing documentation. https://gitlab.com/esr/reposurgeon/issues/151 filed - it's a lot more than just reparent for which documentation appears to have disappeared. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com