Re: [converting scarab] high repository size after cvs2svn

On Sun, 2004-02-01 at 16:26, Jerome Lacoste wrote:

> SVN repository is now 'only' 60% bigger, and it's more acceptable, but
> still disappointing :)
>

Please don't confuse Subversion and cvs2svn.py. They're separate
projects. If you had been using Subversion for all Scarab development
from day one, I can pretty much guarantee your repository would be the
same size, and most likely smaller if you're storing binaries.

It's well known that cvs2svn has bugs, is still being actively worked
on, and has not been "blessed" for widespread use yet. It's nowhere
near 1.0 quality. The problem it's trying to solve, particularly when
it comes to "deducing" branches and tags, is incredibly difficult. At
the moment, cvs2svn.py often results in a set of commits that are far,
far more complex and inefficient than what humans really would have
done.

If cvs2svn is critical to you, check back in about a month. A few
people have recently started working on it very hard, and it should be
in much better shape in a few weeks.

Alternately, you can do what Subversion did in August 2001: just leave
your history behind in a CVS repository... i.e. just import the latest
scarab tree into an empty SVN repository and keep going. It's not
really all that inconvenient. "Switching to SVN" doesn't have to imply
"migrating all history."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Feb 1 23:40:15 2004