time to switch from CVS to Git, was: Missing mailings from commits


On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, James Amundson wrote:

< On 02/26/2011 08:31 AM, Leo Butler wrote:
< > 
< > 
< > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, James Amundson wrote:
< 
< > <  	2) Since I'm using a cvs snapshot from Ray, we should be comparing
< > <  against that, not the current CVS. I put a copy of the snapshot here:
< > <
< > <  	http://amundson-long.net/maxima-cvs-2011-15.tar.bz2
< > 
< > 
< >   Jim, I redid the tests using your git repo, and ignoring diffs
< >   caused by:
< >   -RCS-type headers in all files;
< >   -case changes in .li?sp , .el files
< >   the results look quite good.
< 
< OK. Great.
< 
< >   You can find the results at
< > 
< >   http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~lbutler/cvs2git-v2/
< > 
< >   I put the script used to do the tests in there, too.
< >   I note though, that the tags+branches of each are not
< >   exactly the same.
< > 
< >   I didn't understand your comment (2), because I wanted to
< >   check how well the git repo's tags+branches compared to the
< >   cvs repo's and I (think I) need access to the cvs repo
< >   for that, not just a snapshot.
< 
< I'm sorry for using confusing terminology. What I really meant is that I'm
< using an old backup of the entire CVS repository, which is in the tarball at
< the url above. We should compare against that.
 
 See the results here:
 http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~lbutler/cvs2git-v3/

 I am not sure why, but there are several files where the RCS headers
 are reported as (spurious) diffs consistently, and this does not happen
 when checking against the SF repo. Otherwise, my comments above apply.

 Perhaps we should come to a consensus on where to go from here.

 Leo



-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.