Mercurial change from Large CVS repository + Large Binary Libraries

[Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail]

Hi Jesse and thanks for your thoughts (specially acute acid remarks which
are always enjoyed).

* no way to check out just part of a repo

I guess you could *module* up into different repos but it wouldn't be the
same. If I am not mistaken someone was just talking about this, A game
developer or something like that. I don't know where that thread ended up.

I think is important to get a good enriched perspective to be able to guide
a change in a developer environment.



If you *can* use something like Maven, you will certainly have less to
worry about. This can be a big change, and you need to be sure that
libraries are never changed in the repository without supplying a new
version number.


What do you mean? please don't scare me... :-)

Did you implement maven also?


f(t)

On Feb 19, 2008 4:55 PM, Jesse Glick <jesse.glick at sun.com> wrote:

> Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail wrote:
> > Large CVS repositories being Converted to Mercurial.
>
> Worked OK for me, after throwing out branches and "Attic" files. In
> practice I find that when developers say they want history imported,
> they usually mean they want to be able to run 'hg ann' and get some
> useful output - for which you only need trunk history of files which
> existed in the trunk at the time of conversion. In the rare case you
> need to reconstruct an entire historical snapshot of your sources, you
> can still use CVS (keep the server around read-only). Of course your
> team may have different needs.
>
> > How can we handle libraries? Should they be in the repository, what
> > are your thoughts in general?
>
> If you *can* use something like Maven, you will certainly have less to
> worry about. This can be a big change, and you need to be sure that
> libraries are never changed in the repository without supplying a new
> version number.
>
> > In your experience what are the main points to gain from converting
> > CVS to Mercurial.
>
> No more
>
> * trying to remember what was the last base tag you used when merging
> the trunk into a branch
> * coaxing people into using -kb at the right times
> * figuring out how to add a directory full of files
> * tracking down the original version of a renamed file
> * maintaining dozens of little separate .cvsignore files
> * finding out that the reason a colleague's code works only on their own
> computer is that they have not bothered to update the rest of the
> repository in over three months
> * urgent screams that the server is down again and no one can get any
> work done
>
> > Are they any disadvantages as far as you know in converting from CVS
> > to Mercurial?
>
> * no way to check out just part of a repo
> * no way to avoid pulling down a big history
> * "merge contention" if too many people are trying to push into one
> central server (even if they are working on unrelated files)
> * baffled stares when you try to explain to longtime CVS users how
> Mercurial history and merging work
>
> > what are the CVS users more prone to dislike an more to like about
> > Mercurial?
>
> If you don't know what you are doing and mess something up (usually
> during a merge), you can innocently dump incorrect changes into an
> entire repository, whereas with CVS if you do all operations within your
> own small directory at least you know you are not affecting anything
> outside that area.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20080220/e437cec4/attachment.htm