Re: onwards to git

[Jim Meyering <jim at meyering dot net>]

Roland McGrath wrote:

>> Is there anything in particular that should be done with ports on or
>> around 9 May to facilitate the switch for ports?  (I did the last release
>> tagging/branching for ports, Daniel did some previous tagging but I think
>> he's away on the 9th.)
>
> I removed Ulrich, who isn't interested in ports, and added Jim,
> who handles the mechanics of the repository conversion for us.
> (Thanks, Jim!)
>
> The ports module is separate from the libc module and the libc change will
> not have any direct or immediate effect on ports.  I previously suggested
> that ports switch to git much earlier (it never needed to wait for the main
> libc conversion).

Hi Roland,

> Jim, is there any substantial benefit for the ports module in redoing the
> cvs->git conversion fresh?

Not unless you see there's a missing tag.
The value in keeping the existing SHA1 hashes
outweighs that of a few omitted tags (which could
probably be reconstructed anyway, if desired).

> If not, then there are no more mechanical
> details required for ports to switch.  Just the committers need to switch.
> If so, let's do that fresh conversion right away.

I've found it's useful to manage the switch like this:

  1) announce that the git repo is now "upstream"
  2) add a commit hook prohibiting commits to the cvs repository
  3) stop the cvs-to-git mirroring process
  4) cvs-remove all files and add a sole file, README-moved-to-git

I've done stpes 2-4 several times, mostly on savannah-based
repositories, as projects have switched, so can do it pretty
efficiently, if you'd like.  Just say when.

I'll be back in about 8 hours.