Steve Williams wrote:
>316 files into a VSS project of ~1100 files and it's output over 630,000
>temp files so far. It has slowed down to about 20-25 files per hour.
>
>Sly
>
>
Well, I'm pretty much at a loss then. I suppose I could include an
option to delay extracting and saving the comments until the moment
they're needed, which of course would slow down the whole process quite
a bit also.
Or I could split the history-recreation phase into two phases (for a
total of, let's see, four phases I think). At first it would migrate the
entire history without any comments at all, then go back and attach the
comments to the proper revisions, extracting them from VSS one at a time.
Of course, both of these approaches may very well end up taking just as
long as it does now, but at least it should be much more scalable.
Unfortunately, since comments are used to determine if multiple VSS
commits should be part of the same transaction, delaying the processing
of comments would disable this functionality. I could, in that case, use
just author and date when grouping transactions, maybe checking to
ensure multiple commits were within, say, 10 minutes of each other (VSS
can be pretty slow when commiting lots of changes at once).
Now that I think about it, splitting up VSS projects to migrate them
individually isn't a good solution either, especially if you're
migrating dates as well. I believe I've read on this list that all
revisions must be chronological according to svn:date.
As a side note, I have decided to open up a separate project for this
script on tigris.org; more on that once it's approved. I still don't
plan on supporting this very long-term, but at least this way others
could more easily make changes, and we can also offload this discussion
there.
toby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 27 07:46:40 2004