Greg Stein wrote:
>>I think it's better to create the repository beforehand. If nothing
>>else, you can then tweak the DB_CONFIG parameters to suit your needs
>>before the conversion. This could mean a big difference in conversion
>>times. It also opens the door for incremental imports, which might not
>>be a bad thing.
>
>
> It should work both ways. It is extremely handy to just have the tool
> create one for you.
I added --create option in my version. If that should be the default,
perhaps --import (or something like that) could be added instead.
> In fact, I'd argue that pass 4 is too large. It should figure out the
> commits and drop those into a file that defines the commit groups. A new
> pass 5 would read that file and perform the commits. This would allow a
> human or other tool to operate on, and tweak, the file which is defining the
> commits.
I agree. Ideally there would be a pass that would generate a
list of commits and then the final commit phase would be restartable at any
commit.
> Because the patch breaks the multi-pass concept, I don't believe it should
> be applied. It is way cool that it solves the branches and tags, but I would
> suggest providing a patch which adds some of the basic substrate first. Then
> fix up the in-core data thing, and provide another patch on top of that.
I am already working on saving the tags and branches to the revs file
(50% done).
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 24 07:36:59 2002