From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ken Raeburn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bazaar migration status? Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:45:13 -0400 Message-ID: <1191BC8A-2506-4A5F-ADF2-74E4784F0C57@raeburn.org> References: <87skgvtatv.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87vdlpi2t9.fsf@canonical.com> <87skgrj8z6.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4F76137C-0F9C-4181-8C02-F47C0180A9E3@raeburn.org> <871vo8vz2l.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <4CF97BAA-1FED-45A9-BE96-2A6A68294D12@raeburn.org> <87vdljvms6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87hbx294wk.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1248425190 30535 80.91.229.12 (24 Jul 2009 08:46:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:46:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Development To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 24 10:46:23 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MUGQ2-00089P-So for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:46:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41787 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MUGQ2-0007hi-6c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:46:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MUGPw-0007hd-Eo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:46:16 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MUGPr-0007gk-RC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:46:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47356 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MUGPr-0007gh-Jr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:46:11 -0400 Original-Received: from splat.raeburn.org ([69.25.196.39]:47715 helo=raeburn.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MUGP0-0005kN-KQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:46:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [10.0.0.172] (squish.raeburn.org [10.0.0.172]) by raeburn.org (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n6O8jD5s007962; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:45:13 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87hbx294wk.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:113090 Archived-At: On Jul 23, 2009, at 22:43, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> (And likewise for everyone downstream.) After all, it will be in a >> sense the same repository > > To quote one of my less favorite Presidents, "There you go again!" :-) > See? You're very willing to go with "I know they're the same, so, yo > git, what's your problem?" I have no problems with humans saying > that, but it's the *last* kind of attitude we want our VCS to take! In the general case I'd agree, but here we're talking about two conversions of the same repository -- one from cvs to git, and the other from cvs to bzr and then to git. > It is, except that the conversion from CVS is fraught with > nondeterminism; Ah, I guess that's what I was missing.... > That, I believe, is true. But AIUI it's not because of inherent > nondeterminism in the conversion process being used, it's because CVS > suffers from nonatomic commits. The history is continuously being > cleaned up (the conversion process tuned), so that in fact the > official bzr repository will have a different history from the > existing CVS->git mirror. That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. I think I was assuming we'd have the same conversion process, without any tuning since whatever generated the git repo. But given that we're talking about conversion of the main, official repository, getting it done as well as possible this time makes more sense. Ken