Jim Meyering wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> I consider the automated cvs-to-git mirroring to be the first step
>> in any conversion proposal:
>> First, give people an idea of what they can expect in a git-based dVCS,
>> without requiring any change. It lets people continue to use the tools
>> they're familiar with, and allows the better parts of a dVCS to begin
>> to show up the radar of those who haven't yet had time to explore them.
> I don't really buy this because it's a one-way transaction. The
> people that need to be convinced that there's value in switching to
> git vs bzr vs hg vs svn also have commit rights to the main
> repository. For a demo to reach this audience you need to get them
> the ability to work from this tree. Which means they need to be able
> to checkout, checkin, tag, and request builds from it.
[didn't we talk at a Mexican place after the fudcon in Boston?]
[Yeah, I think we did :-) ]
Using such a mirror need not be a one-way transaction.
Obviously, it'd be far less useful if there were such a limitation.
When I do serious work against an upstream CVS repository, I arrange to
mirror the CVS repo to git, and do all of my work in git, committing
changes on private git branches. Then, I can easily rebase each of
those branches (sort of like cvs update), to synchronize with newer
upstream changes on the parent branch.[*] When I want to commit to
cvs, it's easy to automate using git-cvsexportcommit. While this MO is
not as comfortable as working in a git-only environment, it does help
give you a feel for what it'd be like, and *I* certainly appreciate it.
Of course, this can't help for tag/release-related operations, but it's
a good start for the rest.
That sounds better. Where does all this get setup? On the user's
machine or the server? I still don't know if you'll get many developers
to try it since you still have to keep both the git and cvs tree so they
can make tag and make build. git can't push tags back to cvs?
Even with this slightly-contorted routine, I've appreciated
git: for example, while using conventional diff, patch, and cvs,
it's easy to forget to "cvs add" a new file that was added by a patch.
It's also easy to forget to apply "chmod a+x..." to a script just added
by a patch. But in git, that doesn't happen as much, because the tools
do more of the work for you. And git-cvsexportcommit takes care of the
details of making sure everything in a git change set makes it back
into a cvs "commit".
Git does that when you apply a patch? Or only when you apply a patch
that was generated via git? (I tried git apply foo.patch but that
didn't seem to have the behaviour you mention.)