On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 15:36, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > > > On 11/12/2019 15:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 15:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > > >> I wouldn't bother with that. There are known defects in the version of > > >> reposurgeon that I used to produce that which have since been fixed. It > > >> was *never* the point of that upload to ask for correctness checks on > > >> the conversion (I said so at the time). Instead it was intended to > > >> demonstrate the improvements to the commit summaries that I think we can > > >> make. > > > > > > My concern is that there is no conversion done using reposurgeon that > > > *can* be used to do correctness checks. > > > > > > > I have concerns too, but I'm in contact with the reposurgeon guys and > > progress *is* being made. > > Concretely: when I did a comparison of the tip of trunk against master > from a reposurgeon conversion on 29 November, there were 1421 differences > (files or directories only present in one of SVN or git or with different > contents). As of today with the SVN dump reader rewrite, this is down to > just two differences (plus two empty directories present in SVN as git > doesn't represent empty directories), and we understand exactly where the > problem arises with a trunk deletion and recreation and what's odd about > that particular trunk deletion and recreation. All the deleted tags and > branches are now placed neatly in refs/deleted/; we no longer have any > problems with deleted tags or branches wrongly appearing in the main tag > and branch namespaces; all the mess with deleted branches appearing in the > reposurgeon-generated "root" branch has gone, everything there now appears > to relate to commits that genuinely and correctly do not go in any branch > or tag (changes to the hooks directory, branches wrongly created at top > level, etc.). Almost all the branches that previously weren't created in > git by reposurgeon because they were not changed in SVN after branch > creation are now properly present in the conversion to git.
That's good news and I'm relieved to hear it. Thanks.
