From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bzr repository ready? Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:19:07 -0500 Message-ID: <874oz7l3no.fsf@canonical.com> References: <87vdsrjcco.fsf@workhorse.earlhome> <87fxjgb4ud.fsf_-_@red-bean.com> <87eiyy3lag.fsf@notengoamigos.org> <87bpu1451m.fsf@red-bean.com> <874ozs34c6.fsf@notengoamigos.org> <87k58nyih3.fsf@red-bean.com> <87ocxxrjnh.fsf@canonical.com> <874ozp4ld3.fsf@notengoamigos.org> <87ocxrgm4g.fsf@canonical.com> <87y6wvhxrk.fsf@notengoamigos.org> <8763jwg1j8.fsf@red-bean.com> <87y6wsd0ll.fsf@red-bean.com> <8763jwb81u.fsf@red-bean.com> <87tz7at8m0.fsf@red-bean.com> <87zlh1rf65.fsf@red-bean.com> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233951574 7018 80.91.229.12 (6 Feb 2009 20:19:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 20:19:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jason Earl Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 06 21:20:39 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 1LVXBm-0003V2-Ay for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:20:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43900 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LVXAT-0006Ab-3Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:19:17 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LVXAP-00069B-MS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:19:13 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LVXAN-00067X-Ts for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:19:12 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57693 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LVXAN-00067P-Pv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:19:11 -0500 Original-Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:38026) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LVXAN-00006L-EQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:19:11 -0500 Original-Received: from hutte.canonical.com ([91.189.90.181]) by adelie.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Debian)) id 1LVXAL-0003qT-SX; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:19:09 +0000 Original-Received: from cpe-24-193-42-111.nyc.res.rr.com ([24.193.42.111] helo=kfogel-work) by hutte.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LVXAL-00050w-LB; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:19:09 +0000 In-Reply-To: <87zlh1rf65.fsf@red-bean.com> (Karl Fogel's message of "Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:49:22 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:108834 Archived-At: Jason, The conversion seems to have a tag problem: there are a bunch of tags that are in CVS, and that made it into Git, but that do not seem to be present in the emacs-merges-ce Bazaar repository. To see the list of missing tags, visit http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel/emacs-bzr-switchover/sanity-checks.txt and search for "Check that all tags are present". That section shows how I generated the lists of tags, and how I compared them, and shows the results of the comparison. (I also want to look more closely at the "Spot-check a branch-sync change" section in that file, but the tags thing is most important right now.) Thoughts? -Karl Karl Fogel writes: > Andreas Schwab writes: >> Karl Fogel writes: >>> "Spot-check a branch-sync change." >> >> This is another merge commit that your tool appears to mishandle. When >> checking out the cvs trees before and after the change I see no >> difference to the corresponding git trees, except that the files that >> were renamed in this merge appear under both names in the older CVS >> checkout. The latter may be a limitation of cvs when checking out a >> date, or it could be due to an invalid direct manipulation of the cvs >> history (manually adding a branch tag instead of going through cvs >> add/rm). > > Or more likely, direct manipulation of the files in the CVS repository > (i.e., renaming). > > Thanks. I probably could have done the same checks you just did, but I > have to admit that by that point I was ready to be doing something else > for a bit (these verifications take a lot of legwork :-) ). > >>> "Check that all tags are present." >> >> These tags are all present in the git tree. May be a bug in the >> git->bzr conversion. > > Yup. We'll look into it. > >>> "Check that all branches are present." >> >> Likewise, the branches are all present in the git tree. > > Okay, thanks. > >> The master-UNNAMED-BRANCH contains changes belonging to revisions that >> are unreachable from any branch tag. The name was constructed by >> parsecvs since such unreferenced commits cannot exist in git. Actually, >> this branch combines several such anonymous branches, but parsecvs could >> not tell them apart. > > I never would have thought of that. Hunh. Thanks. > > -Karl