Tom Lane wrote:
> Warren Turkal <wt@penguintechs.org> writes:
>> On Saturday 24 February 2007 23:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I also tend to think that a conversion will be easier in a year or two
>>> than it is today --- the problems noted upthread are certainly a
>>> heads-up that cvs2svn is not yet as robust as one could wish.
>
>> Cvs2svn seems to make as much sense of CVS data as possible. The only real
>> problem I have seen is with regard to the malformed files I mentioned
>> earlier. I haven't seen any other concrete examples.
>
> It was mentioned upthread that Josh has seen repeated problems with his
> conversions. I too would like to see some details about that.
Well the only error I get is if I leave the interfaces/Perl directories
intact. The conversion won't work with those directories.
However as Alvaro has said there are wierd changelog message merges. Now
that may be a configurable thing that I could take a look at.
> One
> thing that I personally would find to be a showstopper for any proposed
> switch is if it fails to maintain our change histories; in particular,
> if it's not still possible to pull an exact copy of any given prior
> release, it'll be no sale.
I agree with this.
> I gather from this thread that svn has by
> far the closest storage model to cvs of any of the available
> alternatives ... so if svn has conversion problems, what's it gonna
> be like with another one?
Well keep in mind there is more than one tool to do the conversion.
cvs2svn is just one of them. We would have to test.
To me a bigger problem , is finding the mistakes before we migrate.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
