CVS -> HG convert - large repos....
Peter Toft
pto at linuxbog.dk
Wed Jan 5 16:13:16 CST 2011
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:43:47 -0500, Greg Ward <greg-hg at gerg.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Peter Toft <pto at linuxbog.dk> wrote:
>> I have been experimenting quite a bit converting CVS repositories to
>> Mercurial.
>> With "minor/young" CVS repositories I find that "hg convert CVS_sandbox
>> HG_sandbox"
>> does the job well. Quite fast and painless.
>>
>> However for a big old CVS repository with ~2000 files - all in all ~90 MB. I
>> have approx
>> 30000 commits over the time, then the pain starts to kick in :)
>
> Meh. That's not big. Big starts somewhere around 500 MB, 10000
> files, and 50000 commits. ;-) But I'm not too surprised that "hg
> convert" chokes on it. The problem generally isn't size, it's tags
> and branches.
Hi again
he he - at least my stash is over the top for "hg convert".
>
> The tool you are looking for is cvs2hg, my branch of cvs2svn with a
> Mercurial backend. Clone http://hg.gerg.ca/cvs2svn and read
> README.cvs2hg.
Yep - good one for sure :)
I got that one working perfectly - in one hour+ I got my branches +
all tags, everything works.
I hope you could get this work back into cvs2svn - or -
distribtute it via mercurial.
I also got a few other emails off-list (thanx a lot mates), which
mostly
suggested me to use native "cvs2svn" followed by "hg convert".
That also worked - albeit slower, but I lost my side-branches and all
tags were gone - bummer ;/ Maybe I needed some more options in that
two-stage
process. Comments?
>
>> Anyone else with experiences with BIG cvs repos?
>> It is smarter to convert CVS->SVN->HG as some have proposed?
>
> That idea disgusted me so much that I wrote cvs2hg rather than have to
> contemplate it any more. ;-)
>
> Greg
he he - thanx a lot
Best
Peter
--
Peter Toft <pto at linuxbog.dk> http://petertoft.dk
More information about the Mercurial
mailing list