Re: Merging back fixup commits (was: Some cvs2bzr thoughts)

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Max Bowsher <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think we have different definitions of 'spurious' :-)  I'm quite happy
> for cvs2x to create as many synthetic changesets as it needs to, so long
>  as it doesn't 'spuriously' attribute its own manipulations to human
> authors.

Well put.  I prefer to keep the number of synthetic changesets to a
minimum.  Guess we need to find a way to tune this to make both of us
happy.

[Max]
>>> What are your thoughts on this difference in design?

[me]
>> I slightly prefer my way, but I'm not dogmatic about it.  As long as
>> it's possible for me to override default behaviour and use dummy
>> merges for my conversion, either way is OK by me.

[Max again]
> Override it from not using merge-backs at all? Or override it from my
> style of merge-backs to yours?
>
> Personally, I'm thinking that merge-backs should be mandatory for
> cvs2bzr (because not doing them really really doesn't produce a useful
> representation of the tag).

I just want to be able to specify "fewer synthetic changesets even if
that makes history a tad dubious by making normal commits look like
dummy merges" over "more synthetic changesets in order to avoid making
normal commits look like dummy merges".

IOW, I agree that merging back fixup heads is essential for a
sane-looking and decent performing Mercurial repository.  If you tell
me the same holds for Bazaar output, I'll take your word for it.  I'm
a little bit surprised that git doesn't care, but git rarely fails to
surprise me.  ;-)

Greg

------------------------------------------------------
http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1667&dsMessageId=2409013

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [[email protected]].