Re: New spin of repository conversion

[Eric S. R. <es...@th...>]

Daniel J Sebald <dan...@ie...>:
> The main issue still is the loss of branch information.

I puzzled over this for a while - I can see all the branches here -
then discovered I had busted my conversion script by parting in some
instructions from SourceForge.  Next spin will use git push --mirror as it
should.

> I'm looking into this amending of commit messages.  I think it was Mojca who
> said such things are possible, and yes it does look possible but it is a
> rather advanced and rather clunky thing to do after the fact.

With reposurgeon it's easy.  Just fill in as many as you can of the
comments in the file ENTRY.  I can mechanically apply that to the repo
in one step.

> The tag modification isn't as complicated as the commit-message amending,
> right?  I think for tags we can easily use a git GUI to place a new tag
> alongside the old tag, then delete the old tag.

More work that it needs to be.  Here's what my current set of renames
looks like in reposurgeon:

tag GNUPLOT_RELEASE_3_7_1 rename	3.7.1
tag GNUPLOT_RELEASE_3_7_2 rename	3.7.2
tag GNUPLOT_RELEASE_3_7_3 rename	3.7.3
tag Release_4_2_1 rename	4.2.1
tag Release_4_2_3 rename	4.2.3
tag Release_4_2_4 rename	4.2.4
tag Release_4_2_5 rename	4.2.5
tag Release_4_2_6 rename	4.2.6
tag Release_4_4_0 rename	4.4.0
tag Release_4_4_1 rename	4.4.1
tag Release_4_4_2 rename	4.4.2
tag Release_4_4_3 rename	4.4.3
tag Release_4_4_4 rename	4.4.4
tag Release_4_6_0 rename	4.6.0
tag Release_4_6_1 rename	4.6.1
tag Release_4_6_2 rename	4.6.2
tag Release_4_6_4 rename	4.6.4
tag Release_4_6_5 rename	4.6.5
tag Release_4_6_6 rename	4.6.6
tag Release_5_0_0 rename	5.0.0
tag Release_5_0_1 rename	5.0.1
tag Release_5_0_2 rename	5.0.2
tag Release_5_0_3 rename	5.0.3
tag Release_5_0_4 rename	5.0.4
tag Release_5_0_5 rename	5.0.5
tag Release_5_0_6 rename	5.0.6
tag Release_5_0_7 rename	5.0.7
tag Release_5_2_0 rename	5.2.0
tag Release_5_2_1 rename	5.2.1

It's that easy.

> As for naming convention
> I'll leave that up to others, but I would think that making the release tag
> format the same as the tarball file name is most logical--whether the
> tarball names should be changed, I don't know (could create confusion out
> there in the Internet universe).

Common thing to do in git-land is just to use the version number itself, as
I've done above.  But a different format, like 'gnuplot-5.2.1', would be
easy to arrange.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.