It is Subversion 0.37.0 that I am using, but I got cvs2svn.py by grabbing
the latest from the Subversion source. I had revision 8628 of cvs2svn.py
when I ran it.
I realize that the number of nearly useless tags cluttering our CVS
repository is absurd. Those of us championing Subversion in our
organization are discussing whether or not we want to migrate any tags or
branches to Subversion or whether we want to leave all of that behind. We
have tentatively agreed that we'd like to ignore branches and tags entirely
and that we also would like to ignore everything in the CVS Attic. In order
words, we're choosing a middle ground. We think that history for files that
are still relevant has sufficient value to bring forward into the new world,
but we do not see ourselves trying to make old builds from our new SVN
repository. Older software builds will live out the rest of their life in
CVS. If we stick with that decision then seeing --trunk-only implemented
will be helpful to us. We could also use an --ignore-attic option unless it
is thought that that behavior should be implied by --trunk-only.
In looking at what appears within my various Subversion tags subdirectories,
I'm guessing that over the years people did a lot of piecemail/selective CVS
tagging; instead of tagging everything in the repository they must have used
scripts to move about and selectively tag chunks/files here and there. I
wonder if this is what wrapped cvs2svn.py around the axle. I seem to
remember seeing a lot of add/remove node stuff scrolling by for each tag
when tags were being processed - not just the simple copy you might expect
in the nice, simple, clear-cut case.
From: Erik Huelsmann [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 2:37 PM
To: Bern McCarty
Subject: Re: My observations and experience with cvs2svn.py on Windows
> I thought I'd share the results of my first experience with cvs2svn.py
> which happened to be on Windows.
Thanks! Such information is greatly appreciated.
> I knew that my CVS repository was littered with tons of tags that had
> accumulated over the years. I expected that the resulting Subversion
> repository (in particular the strings file) would be smaller than the
> total size of all of the RCS files in CVS, partly due to what I
> a much more efficient way to represent tags. What I observed was quite
> the opposite. My db/strings file ended up being nearly 5 times larger
> than the sum total size of my CVS repository files. Seeing that all
> of the tag related transactions appeared to be at the end of the
> DUMPFILE, I cracked
What svn version did you use? There has been a release which was - by
default - not as efficient as it could have been about a half year ago.
GMX ProMail (250 MB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS, Virenschutz, 2,99 EUR/Monat...)
jetzt 3 Monate GRATIS + 3x DER SPIEGEL +++ http://www.gmx.net/derspiegel +++
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Tue Feb 17 21:29:07 2004