[darcs-users] Re: cvs migration and legacy

Eric S. Johansson esj at harvee.org
Sun May 16 11:22:13 UTC 2004


David Brown wrote:

> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 10:39:20PM -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> 
> 
>>David, I must apologize for being blond on this point.  it sounds like 
>>you have two darcs repositories, one comingled with cvs.  you apply 
>>patches to the darcs only repository then after checking things out, 
>>pull the patches into darcs/cvs and then you push (check-in) the changes 
>>into cvs.
> 
> 
> Correct.  As long as you use the right options with CVS, then neither
> darcs or CVS actually change anything in the working directory, and so
> it works fairly well to keep them in parallel in the same directory.

having read the documentation last night and scanned again this morning, 
my knowledge is the bright fragile thing that all newcomers have so 
forgive me if I get it confused.

It seems to me that what you are doing is imposing a definition of 
patches on CVS.  The definition is one set of changes from the 
maintainer and you're also enforcing a policy of all changes go through 
you and are pushed to CVS.  the implication is that there are no others 
pushing data into CVS.

I also should have said yesterday that you are pushing from your 
comingled repository into CVS and darcs.  Are you pulling from the darcs 
pool as well?


if one was going to actually deal with CVS on a more bidirectional 
basis, it seems to me that one could impose a definition of patches on 
CVS according to timestamp of check-in.  In other words, all the files 
are check-in at the same time are considered the equivalent of a 
"patch".  Or maybe they're the Kremlin of what you get when you "darcs 
add".  If that definition works, then you might have a tolerable for 
bidirectional operations.

like I said, fragile bright knowledge of a newcomer.  This is probably 
something folks have covered already.

---eric





More information about the darcs-users mailing list