On 8/15/12 1:45 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>  . When you have changes in the bzr repo:
>>     . "bzr pull" from the git repo to the bzr branch created above
> 
> But his Git repository is the result of a "Bzr->Git" conversion.
> So we'd get here a "Bzr->Git->Bzr" conversion.  I strongly suspect that
> it is not an identity and that all the revids will be different.

I tried cloning a local git mirror (derived from the Savannah git
mirorr) using bzr-git. It's even slower than git-bzr. It's used 23
miutes of CPU time and processed 8315 of 122105 records.

>>     . "bzr merge" to another bzr branch that tracks the Emacs trunk
> 
> If indeed all the revids are different, this will either complain that
> there's no common ancestor (best case) or find some distant ancestor and
> pretty much double the size of the repository with a new copy of the
> whole history.
> 
> This said, I don't understand the problem discussed here.
> Isn't "git-bzr" bidirectional (i.e. you can "git push" onto the Bzr
> repository)?

git-bzr would be great if it worked, but it doesn't work for me. After
chugging along for about an hour, it fails and complains about a
missing committer record.

How is the Savannah git mirror being generated? Matching its revids
would be the most important part of any bidirectional mirriroing
scheme. If Savannah is using git-bzr, I'd like to know the versions of
the pieces of software involved and whether the Savannah people made
any local modifications.