Oh, cool. That sounds to have been a bit of a tar pit but I'm glad you managed to pull the useful stuff out of it. It's lovely that a 25-year-old history CAN be preserved usefully in production like that!
I was recently impressed with how far cvs-fast-export looked to have come. Although I almost needed the opposite -- at work I would like to drag our source code out of cvs, but (i) I think we can live with it if the history isn't preserved perfectly, as long as the current state is, as there wasn't much interesting history other than sequential commits, and (ii) there's no will to move everything at once, so we'd have to use git in parallel, repeatedly importing from cvs as the canonical version until git was shown to be better, and I'm not sure if cvs-fast-export can do that yet. Or even if it's worth it if we can't use a lot of git features until we switch over permanently (I think there would be benefits, but not that many if people aren't eager to work in a git-like fashion).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-11-27 17:05 (UTC)I was recently impressed with how far cvs-fast-export looked to have come. Although I almost needed the opposite -- at work I would like to drag our source code out of cvs, but (i) I think we can live with it if the history isn't preserved perfectly, as long as the current state is, as there wasn't much interesting history other than sequential commits, and (ii) there's no will to move everything at once, so we'd have to use git in parallel, repeatedly importing from cvs as the canonical version until git was shown to be better, and I'm not sure if cvs-fast-export can do that yet. Or even if it's worth it if we can't use a lot of git features until we switch over permanently (I think there would be benefits, but not that many if people aren't eager to work in a git-like fashion).