| 1 |
"Fernando J. Pereda" <ferdy@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 02:06:36PM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Second issue with git, is that with lots of tiny little files things |
| 5 |
> > don't work so well. I tried converting our portage tree into a git |
| 6 |
> > tree, and it ran for around 2 days until I finally killed it. If we |
| 7 |
> > didn't want to preserve history, then maybe it would work out. But |
| 8 |
> > with the problem I outlined above I still don't see it as a contender. |
| 9 |
> > There are lots of times when one would want to do a commit in one |
| 10 |
> > directory. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Ryan, |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> What tool did you use for that? AFAIK parsecvs[1] has converted some |
| 16 |
> very big and broken CVS repositories successfully. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> - ferdy |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> [1] git://git.freedesktop.org/~keithp/parsecvs |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I was using cvs2git. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I sorta like git in certain aspects. If git would work better than |
| 25 |
CVS or anything other SCM I'm for it. Right now, _anything_ would be |
| 26 |
better than CVS. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-ryan |
Archives