I've done several conversions of other tools to other tools, and this
kind of question is always asked. My answer is always 'If you want it
saved, check it in.'
Doing all the doctoring is not worth the effort, especially for
something that is rather accident prone, and excuse the strong language,
a 'hack'. I'd suggest using both tools for what they are designed for,
namely saving code.
Have your users check everything in.
Cvs2svn.
Have your users check everything out.
It's a one-time deal and checking out any code tree one time is going to
be a lot faster than doing all this voodoo on it.
If you propose to do the hand-conversion process for everyone, it'll
take you a long time. And it'll be hard to justify to the folks that pay
the bills. If they see everyone struggling with this, they may start to
ask why you're changing the tool in the first place. Replacing a source
control tool is hard enough to do in the first place, starting with
convincing people it should be done, picking a tool, testing it, rolling
it out... no need to make it more complicated.
I've found that when you really grill folks for information, the files
they *need* 'saved' really don't need it. And if they do, why aren't
they backed up (as in, checked into the source control tool?) in the
first place? A little human engineering can go a long way. If they
insist, teach them how to use tar where they can spend their own time
archiving files and putting them back into their code tree.
-Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Koning [mailto:pkoning@equallogic.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 11:04 AM
To: subversion-2005@ryandesign.com
Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: converting a CVS working directory to SVN
>>>>> "Ryan" == Ryan Schmidt <subversion-2005@ryandesign.com> writes:
Ryan> On Sep 26, 2005, at 18:11, Paul Koning wrote:
>> I'm feeling rather foolish that I can't find this, but... I
>> remember a description somewhere that shows how to take a user's
>> CVS working directory (possibly with changes in it) and turn it
>> into a SVN working directory (with the not yet checked in
>> modifications preserved). But it's not as simple as just saying
>> "svn co".
>>
>> Did I dream this or is it real? If real, how is it done?
Ryan> You're right, it was asked before:
Ryan> http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-08/0811.shtml
Ryan> The way to do it was explained here:
Ryan> http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-08/0820.shtml
Thanks.
So in fact I *was* dreaming, because I dreamt of something far
simpler. :-)
Would it make sense for "svn update" to do this, perhaps with a
switch? Or is this a sufficiently obscure need that the manual way,
or perhaps that way plus a bit of script magic, is "good enough"?
paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
**********************************************************************
E-mail sent through the Internet is not secure. Western Asset therefore recommends that you do not send any confidential or sensitive information to us via electronic mail, including social security numbers, account numbers, or personal identification numbers. Delivery, and or timely delivery of Internet mail is not guaranteed. Western Asset therefore recommends that you do not send time sensitive or action-oriented messages to us via electronic mail.
**********************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Sep 26 20:22:39 2005