Subject: Re: [boost] [git] neglected aspects
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-02 11:33:51
on Fri Mar 02 2012, John Wiegley <jwiegley-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> If you want to know the precise differences between the two, John will have
>> to explain them to you... but if you look at the former repository you can
>> find lots of spurious-looking branches, e.g. "trunk_at_38326," "trunk_at_38328,"
>> etc. So I wouldn't be concerned by the smaller number of branches in the
>> latter mirror.
> One difference between git-svn and subconvert is that git-svn doesn't preserve
> ancient branches which had the same name as current branches.
> For example, you create a branch foo, then later delete it, then create a new
> branch foo. git-svn will throw away any history related to the first branch
> There are a few other cases where git-svn tosses history to make its job
> simpler. Case in point:
> git-svn version of Boost history: 660,068 Git objects
> subconvert version of Boost history: 1,204,586 Git objects
> Clearly a lot of something is getting lost on the cutting floor with git-svn.
> subconvert's goal is preserve every Subversion revision that every existed
> somewhere behind a branch or a tag in the resulting Git repository.
Thanks, John --- It'd be awesome if you could update the github repos'
comment areas with that information.
Also, I'd be happy to throw out the git-svn version and stick with the
subconvert version from here on out, provided you could get the
subconvert repo to update itself more frequently.
What do you think?
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk