-=| Joey Hess, Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 04:30:39PM -0400 |=- > Also, "use git-cvs" is a weak sop to doing it properly. Our > experience in > the d-i team (which just finished converting to git) is that only highly > motivated or core contributors bothered with the significant pain of using > git-svn. That pain included a very long initial checkout process, and > ongoing pain with keeping up-to-date, and not being able to share well with > others, etc. I doubt git-cvs is much better. I have never succeeded in using git-cvs for anything real. Even attempts to simply clone a CVS repository for the benefits of easier searching failed miserably with non-trivial repositories. Not sure if committing to CVS via git-cvs is possible at all. git-svn is much better than git-cvs IME. It is able to emulate most of the SVN workflow and still add detached commits and handy searches/diffs. Not exactly like the real Git, but much, much better than git-cvs. I think I've read on IRC about someone trying to migrate website build/translation tools to Git.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature