Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:13:02 -0400
I had good luck with cvs2svn, but only after getting all the options
correct. Specifically, without the --no-default-eol option, cvs2svn was
corrupting binary files upon import from an old CVS repository. It's
important to check things over a bit and have a few trial runs.
There are also problems importing from a repository where branches and
tags are used inconsistently. But it seems that if you've never used the
same name for both a branch and a tag, you're ok.
All in all, I'm happy with the migration. It's very nice to have
accurate history and logs.
See also: http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2004-11/0745.shtml (Case study:
Mono switches to Subversion)
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 10:59 -0700, Stephen Weeks wrote:
> > I would like to suggest considering migration from CVS to SVN.
> I've been thinking of making the same suggestion for a while.
> > I have been using SVN for some time on my own (small) projects and
> > the experience has been positive.
> I've been using SVN for the last 4-5 months on a largish project and
> have been quite happy.
> > Now that the so called FSFS repositories are the default, the most
> > annoying SVN repository maintenance issues are probably gone.
> Yeah, the database helped to clinch my decision not to switch to SVN
> when I looked at it last year.
> > For me, the killer features of SVN are:
> > [0. similarity to CVS; SVN is easy to learn,]
> > 1. the ability to do (among other things) status queries and diffs
> > while not connected, and
> > 2. ability to move files and directories.
> I second these. The speed from using local pristine copies is also
> nice. Finally, I've found the integrated log useful -- no need to
> maintain a separate "commitlog".
> The (potential) drawback for the MLton project would be losing old
> revisions and tags. I haven't played around with the SVN tools for
> migrating CVS repositories, but I was less than enthused about their
> accuracy after reading the documentation. I'd be interested to hear
> others' experiences here. The right way to go might be to simply
> freeze the CVS and start with a fresh import into the SVN. We can
> leave the CVS server up for read access for as long as we feel it's
> useful to look at old stuff.
> Another issue is timing of the migration. I was thinking to move
> immediately after the next release, which will hopefully be in a month
> or two. However, Matthew and I are about to start a branch for the
> 64-bit port, so it might be better to move to SVN ASAP.
> MLton mailing list
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----