Re: Simplifying the conversion

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: esr@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:31:39 -0500 (EST)
> 
> I can find no evidence that anyone ever dropped either a Bazaar or
> CVS revision stamp anywhere in the source tree outside a Changelog.
> 
> I put it in that cautious a way because the search strings I have
> to use to look for these generate a lot of false positives.  It is
> still possible that I have missed a true positive in the clutter.

What patterns did you use to look for revisions, exactly?  Here are a
few references I found:

 lisp/cedet/semantic/bovine/grammar.el:146:    ;; backquote (introduced in rev. 102591 in emacs-bzr).
 lisp/url/url-handlers.el:97:(defvar url-handler-regexp) ; defined below to avoid recursive load (revno:108572)
 lisp/progmodes/python.el:3295:  ;; Inspired by imenu--flatten-index-alist removed in revno 21853.
 lisp/vc/vc-svn.el:26:;; Sync'd with Subversion's vc-svn.el as of revision 5801.

The last one sounds like an svn version from some other repository.

> Does anyone remember putting a revision ID anywhere outside a
> ChangeLog or commit comment?

They should be very rare, but see above.

> Change comments:
> 	bzrs 111300
> 	111840
> 	revision 111647
> 	revno:11026
> 	revno:88864
> 	revno:88805
> 	revno:89810
> 	revision 10835
> 	revision 106726
> 	revision 87208
> 	revision 84777 on 2008-02-22
> 	revno:99634.2.463 (2010-10-09)
> 	revno:101913 (2010-10-12).
> 	revno:20537 (1998-01-01)
> 	revno:87605 (2008-05-14)
> 	revno:87605 (2008-05-14)
> 	revno:34925 (2000-12-29)
> 	revno:20537 (1998-01-01)
> 	revno:25013 (1999-07-21)
> 	revno:43563.1.16 (2002-03-01)
> 	revno:84043 (2008-02-1)
> 	revno:20870 (1998-02-08)
> 	revno:36704 (2001-03-09)
> 	revno:32591 (2000-10-17)
> 	revno:25356 (1999-08-21)
> 	revno:14998 (1996-04-12)
> 	revno:86854 (2008-04-19)
> 	revno:20569 (1998-01-02)
> 	r100577
> 	CVS rev 1.49, 2001-09-12
> 	CVS rev 1.47, 2003/01/27
> 	CVS r1.35
> 	revno 95090 dated 2009-03-06
> 	2005-02-15 (revno 60055)
> 	r111320
> 	revno 99854.1.6
> \	revno 99950
> 	revision 99649
> 	rev 99649
> 	rev 99553
> 	revno 99212
> 	revision 94343
> 	r1.135
> 	rev 1.114
> 	1.878
> 	revision 1.117
> 	rev 1.14395
> 	revision 1.56
> 	3.85
> 	1.17
> 	revision 1.69
> 	revision 1.1
> 	rev 1.5
> 	revisions 1.40
> 	1.41
> 	1.39
> 	revision 1.104
> 	revision 1.51
> 	revision 1.90
> 	revision 1.1509
> 	revision 7.8
> 	CVS v1.12.8 and 1.12.9
> 	cvs-1.12.1
> 	1.103
> 	HEAD (1.72)
> 	v1.275
> 	1.58
> 	v1.5046
> 	v1.5039
> 	rev 1.82
> 	rev. 1.761
> 	revision 1.3831
> 	1.3832
> 	revision 1.12
> 	revision 1.13
> 	revision 1.14
> 	revision 1.15

This looks too short; I get 149 commit messages that specify bzr
revision numbers, and 25 more which look like CVS revision numbers.
Please show the command(s) you used to find these, it's possible you
are missing some options.  I can show you the command I used, if it
will help.

> As I noted prevuiusly, it may turn out that all the action stamps in
> the map have unique timestamps (that is, do not need to be
> disambiguated by committer ID).  If so, I may just use the RFC3339
> form of the commit date, lightly decorated, as a reference.

Why not use the committer ID regardless?  It's easy to get that from
bzr (it's part of the revision ID), and will allow you to avoid the
step of determining whether the time stamps are unique.