All,
We are considering removing some branches and tags in the conversion
process from CVS to SVN. We don't want to do this in a vaccuum, so
please read carefully.
A deficiency in the cvs2svn script causes it to bloat the Subversion
repository (significantly, as in 10x) in the conversion of branches and
tags. We can minimize the impact of this by only keeping branches and
tags that we really need. This gives us an opportunity to clean up some
"dead wood" too. Obviously, I don't want to do this without your
feedback (loosing your needed branch/tag would be bad).
So, please consult the SVN Migration page,
http://llvm.org/SVNMigration.html. This lists the branches and tags we
have currently and whether they are scheduled for deletion or inclusion.
If you think I've categorized something incorrectly, please let me know
ASAP!
We'd like to get this finalized over the next few days.
Thanks in advance for your help,
Reid.
Reed,
Can the "see" branch be renamed "SVA", for Secure Virtual Architecture? This is the new name of the LLVA system and project. It uses LLVM as the instruction set and compiler infrastructure.
Thanks,
--Vikram
http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/
Reid Spencer wrote:
All,
We are considering removing some branches and tags in the conversion
process from CVS to SVN. We don't want to do this in a vaccuum, so
please read carefully.
A deficiency in the cvs2svn script causes it to bloat the Subversion
repository (significantly, as in 10x) in the conversion of branches and
tags. We can minimize the impact of this by only keeping branches and
tags that we really need. This gives us an opportunity to clean up some
"dead wood" too. Obviously, I don't want to do this without your
feedback (loosing your needed branch/tag would be bad).
So, please consult the SVN Migration page,
http://llvm.org/SVNMigration.html. This lists the branches and tags we
have currently and whether they are scheduled for deletion or inclusion.
If you think I've categorized something incorrectly, please let me know
ASAP!
We'd like to get this finalized over the next few days.
I believe the ROOT_VLLVM tag might be the root of the vector_llvm
branch. In that case, it should probably be maintained if at all
possible. Rob, can you comment?
The jtc and jtcllva tags *do not* need to be maintained. They were used
to keep track of a snapshot of LLVM known to compile the Linux kernel
before more recent LLVM releases were known to work as well.
-- John T.
Reed,
Can the "see" branch be renamed "SVA", for Secure Virtual
Architecture? This is the new name of the LLVA system and project.
It uses LLVM as the instruction set and compiler infrastructure.
Yes, we can do that. I'll add it to the conversion script.
Hi Reid,
A deficiency in the cvs2svn script causes it to bloat the Subversion
repository (significantly, as in 10x) in the conversion of branches
and tags.
It's probably a bit late in the day, but have you considered other CVS
to SVN conversion tools, e.g. Tailor?
Darcs - RelatedSoftware/Tailor
http://darcs.arstecnica.it/tailor/
Cheers,
Ralph.
All,
If there are any other branches that need to be renamed, now's the time
to tell me. 
Thanks,
Reid.
Hello, Ralph.
It's probably a bit late in the day, but have you considered other CVS
to SVN conversion tools, e.g. Tailor?
Yes, I've tried it first. Unfortunately, it's:
1. Slow
2. Crashes during conversion.
Taylor is ok of small daily incremental updates (I'm currently using
it), not for such huge as whole repository conversion.
Hi Reid,
> A deficiency in the cvs2svn script causes it to bloat the Subversion
> repository (significantly, as in 10x) in the conversion of branches
> and tags.
It's probably a bit late in the day, but have you considered other CVS
to SVN conversion tools, e.g. Tailor?
Darcs - RelatedSoftware/Tailor
http://darcs.arstecnica.it/tailor/
Yes, we looked at Tailor and found cvs2svn to be better for our needs.
In particular, Tailor doesn't group cvs commits into SVN revisions well.
Anton did the selection so follow up with him for details
Thanks,
Reid.