on Thu May 09 2013, Niall Douglas
on Mon May 06 2013, Niall Douglas
wrote: My experience with SubGit has been very, very good. I would *strongly* recommend it over git2svn.
Why, have you got a lot of experience with both tools? You'd recommend SubGit for what job, exactly? Does it modularize? (answer: no).
Git2svn is painful. I think anyone who has used it even trivially has found it so.
SubGit can map structure arbitrarily, so SVN branches need not become GIT branches, they can become tags or any other kind of git ref. You can apply filters and map one (or more) SVN repo to multiple output GIT repos using those filters, so yes it does do limited modularization.
Is that modularization support particularly powerful? Definitely not. With an automated script to generate a ton load of mappings it could approach the capability of KDE's tool, albeit with no range specific filtering available. But its specific purpose is a different use case: live two-way mapping. And for that you necessarily have to restrict the flexibility of output, because they have to map in reverse.
We didn't choose svn2git at random: we started using it because KDE (a much bigger project than Boost) used it to solve the exact same problems Boost has to solve: modularization + Git migration.
Svn2git is a completely different tool to git2svn. Svn2git is a much superior tool, albeit rather harder to configure (correctly).
You'd have to have some pretty compelling arguments, a complete plan for migration and modularization, and be prepared to lead the effort yourself for me to throw out years of planning and coding to use a different tool. Do you really think you're making a reasonable suggestion?
I'm sorry you have read my confusion that way Dave. I would have hoped that after all the years we have known one another you wouldn't have interpreted my comments in that way.
Sorry, I didn't realize we were discussing different tools. I don't know anything about git2svn.
Just to be clear and for the record, I have no compelling arguments, no plan for migration, and I am in no way criticizing your work, your leadership, nor suggesting the throwing away of any planning or coding. I apologise unreservedly if anything in my words appeared that way. I am absolutely sure that you have given this the very deepest of thought and I - as always actually - trust your judgment. I am simply confused.
OK. I don't know how to un-confuse you, though, sorry.
I think it would be quite easy to set up a live perfect Git mirror of all Boost SVN,
"Perfect," really? I think you are grossly underestimating some of the strange ways that the SVN filesystem has been used over Boost's history. From http://subgit.com/book/index.html#branches-mapping it's clear that the SubGit tool isn't equipped to deal with them properly. For example, there's no revision range limiting in the branch mapping, a feature of svn2git that we actually *need* to use.
Perfect for me means that HEAD and releases work perfectly. I personally feel little priority about perfect preservation of history.
Unfortunately for my workload, the community begs to differ.
do a transition period where SVN is writeable but GIT read only, and then one day the switch is flipped and it goes the other way round. That way anyone dependent on SVN keeps on working, but without write access.
Again, I think a two-way mirror could be a really nice addition to the existing transition plan, if someone is willing to put in the elbow grease to set it up. Are you volunteering?
We can talk about this at C++ Now next week, but if we were to coordinate our efforts and I have definite approval and support from Boost SC, I have no objection to volunteering for this.
I don't see what difference approval from the steering committee makes. If you think it would be helpful, you can go ahead.
There is also the matter that SubGit would probably need some money paid for it as a matter of good faith. I would emphasize that a successful two way mirror does impose substantial restrictions on the variety of modularization possible so long as the mirror is active. That probably is unacceptable to you given your apparent plans.
Yeah, we want to get this thing over with. Thanks for the suggestions, though. -- Dave Abrahams