Re: Roundup of GNUPLOT conversion issues

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

On 10/29/2017 10:20 AM, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
> Am 29.10.2017 um 13:45 schrieb Eric S. Raymond:
>> Daniel J Sebald <dan...@ie...>:
>>
>> Does cvs2git get the tip content of 3.7.x right - that is, coincident 
>> with the
>> 3.7.3 tarball?
> 
> Please note that the tip of the 3.7.* branch is not coincident with the 
> 3.7.3 tag or tarball.  Some further changes were made on the branch 
> after 3.7.3.
> 
> The same goes for all of our release branches.  They all received a 
> couple more changes after the last release was made from them.  So none 
> of the branch tips coincides to any released tarball.  Comparisons 
> really would have to be made to cvs checkouts of the branches, instead.

Correct.  I'm not sure, but it may be that the tarball doesn't exactly 
match CVS either.  It could have been that Lars tweaked some files on 
his system just prior to making the tarball.

In any case, its a very easy matter in git to checkout the converted 
release version as a new branch, wipe all the files in the directory 
(except .git directory of course!), unpack the tarball, press the 
"reload" button of qgit, gitg, or git-gui, write a commit message and 
create a commit... and there you have "GNUPLOT_RELESE_X_Y_Z-tarball" as 
a little stub branch.  The diffs are relatively small so won't take much 
size in the repository.


>>>> 1. Drop the 3.7.x branch.  Replace it with a branch consisting of just
>>>> the archived 3.7.[0123] trees in sequence (I now have them all).
> 
> That would be slightly wrong because 3.7.0 is not on the branch.  It's 
> on the trunk.

This is correct.  GNUPLOT_RELEASE_3_7_0 is on the trunk while the other 
GNUPLOT_RELEASE_3_7_x are on the branch.  I'm attaching screenshots of 
the cvs2git tree and the cvs-fast-export tree after I've made the rebase 
with reposurgeon.  The GNUPLOT_RELEASE_3_7_0 synthetic commit was done 
by cvs-fast-export, not reposurgeon.  So, cvs-fast-export got the 
tag/branch correct but didn't realize that's where the pertinent branch 
should go.

Dan