[darcs-users] RE: darcs'ing fptools

[Simon Marlow]

On 12 October 2005 13:10, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:

> Given my experience with converting a not-small project from CVS to
> darcs (namely c2hs), I agree that a two-way gateway is probably a lot
> of work (if it works at all).  tailor generally seems to do a good
> job of converting existing CVS history to darcs, but I had to massage
> the resulting darcs repo somewhat after the conversion.  I am not
> sure that the massaging would have straight-forwardly translated back
> to CVS. Moreover, darcs provides functionality (such as moving files
> and keeping directories under version control) that CVS does not. 
> Once people use that, things should get tricky.
> 
> Finally, CVS itself doesn't properly do atomic commits.  Converting
> patches between a CVS and a darcs repo might lead to race conditions
> and conflicts that are tedious to fix.  In other words, I believe the
> short sharp pain of a transition from one system to the other is
> better than the continuing agony that will probably result from using
> both systems concurrently.

Given what you and others have said, I tend to agree that setting up a
two-way sync sounds impractical.

How about a compromise: we set up a one way sync from the new darcs repo
back to the old CVS repo, so that those who are using CVS to just
download the sources (particularly anonymous CVS) won't be affected
immediately.  We would disable commits to the appropriate parts of the
CVS repo.

Cheers,
	Simon