[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git?
From: |
Matt Birkholz |
Subject: |
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git? |
Date: |
Sat, 2 May 2009 00:55:37 -0700 |
> From: address@hidden (Matt Birkholz)
> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:12:12 -0700
>
> [...]
> History is dust.
And I am a history buff, apparently. For whatever reason, I cannot
leave it alone. I have found that this
Argument "6521 FNK_SHOW_ALL" isn't numeric ...
is caused by my choice of cut-off tag, RELEASE_7_3_0, which is
"funky". I can hack git-cvsimport to ignore the FNK_SHOW_ALL flag
(i.e. NOT skip the patchset), but the whole cut-off strategy is
leaving several files completely out of the dump -- files that have
not changed since the cut-off!
So... I looked again at fixing the broken files: hash.scm,v and
uenvir.scm,v. I eventually got them patched so that all revisions
could be extracted AND they all have balanced parens. With these
patches (attached), I can git-cvsimport ALL of src/runtime/, and the
resulting git HEAD is not missing any files.
The bit-rot in the repo. seems to start where there are changes near
the end of a revision that has no final newline. Sound familiar?
I do not see any way (at the moment) to merge branches; the log
messages are not helpful. I do not know where that leaves the unnamed
branches. Without a named or merged tip, they are just left to
dangle, inaccessible? Eventually they are GCed by git?
If losing the unnamed branches is acceptable, I would like to take a
crack at fixing the rest of the broken ,v files. Can I get at the CVS
repo. myself somehow? Can someone send me the rest of it?
patch.diff.bz2
Description: CVS repo. fixes
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git?,
Matt Birkholz <=
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git?, Matt Birkholz, 2009/05/02
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git?, Chris Hanson, 2009/05/04
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git?, Amit Saha, 2009/05/04
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git?, Matt Birkholz, 2009/05/04
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git?, Matt Birkholz, 2009/05/09
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git?, Taylor R Campbell, 2009/05/09
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git?, Chris Hanson, 2009/05/09
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git?, Chris Hanson, 2009/05/09
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git?, Marijn Schouten (hkBst), 2009/05/10
- Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] git?, Arthur A. Gleckler, 2009/05/10