On Jun 2, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, it's not like CVS makes it easy ... cvs2cl is about 50K of perl,
> and is not very speedy or without bugs :-(. So maybe we are setting
> the goalposts in the wrong place by supposing that the lowest-level
> git
> history needs to be exactly what's wanted for human consumption.
> As long as it can be postprocessed into the form I do want to look at,
> and someone will volunteer to write that postprocessor, the question
> doesn't seem like a showstopper.
Yes, I think that's the case.
> Meanwhile, there seem to have been ten different solutions proposed to
> the problem of working with multiple branches/checkouts, and I plead
> confusion. Anyone want to try to sort out the pluses and minuses?
If the whole purpose of you committing all backpatches to CVS in a
single commit is to get a simpler cvs2cl history, you can easily do
that with a single clone of the entire history in Git, commit each
branch separately but with the same commit message, and then, yeah,
someone will be able to provide a report that filters out the
duplicate messages appropriately, I have little doubt.
Best,
David
