Re: conversion: vendor branches and release tags

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%gatalith.at@localhost>]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 05:50:03PM +0300, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 01:45:00 +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> 
> > The imports on the vendor branches are in the right order on the
> > bookmarked (unnamed) branches, and the conversion doesn't give us
> > proper merge commits anyway. What would a real branch give us here?
> 
> Proper merge commits?

Sorry, I'm not following. You can have merge commits with named and
unnamed branches. I don't see the difference.

I was asking what the advantage of a named branch in the conversion
would be.

(Anyway, the answer only interests me theoretically now, because the
latest conversion uses named branches anyway.)

> I had a look at the latest othersrc conversion
> (with hg branches for cvs vendor branches) and I see with --graph
> --debug e.g:
> 
> o  changeset:   2479:c3149ad20505551b592cc9ccee066f55e8948bd8
> :  phase:       draft
> :  parent:      2478:bfc5185195830ff39bf056ac21ae543f2f0a54fe
> :  parent:      -1:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
> :  manifest:    2477:92c83f69cfd8c7031c570d68f27f9ac2a10bb4be
> :  user:        Luke Mewburn <lukem%NetBSD.org@localhost>
> :  date:        Sat May 06 09:32:18 2023 +0000
> :  files:       usr.bin/tnftp/src/ftp.c usr.bin/tnftp/src/ssl.c usr.bin/tnftp/src/util.c usr.bin/tnftp/src/version.h
> :  extra:       branch=default
> :  extra:       convert_revision=:15969
> :  description:
> :  Merge from tag NetBSD-20230226 to tag NetBSD-20230505
> 
> [...]
> 
> o  changeset:   136:f5725793d1b0f449f2cebdd03b839b5e8d9d5724
> |  branch:      TNF
> |  phase:       draft
> |  parent:      135:6382f656fc797dd179b7058ede14767b1707df84
> |  parent:      -1:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
> |  manifest:    135:19aa2e7255d490b0b53759a9afcd12144663d0ce
> |  user:        Luke Mewburn <lukem%NetBSD.org@localhost>
> |  date:        Sat May 06 09:16:11 2023 +0000
> |  files:       usr.bin/tnftp/src/ftp.c usr.bin/tnftp/src/ssl.c usr.bin/tnftp/src/util.c usr.bin/tnftp/src/version.h
> |  extra:       branch=TNF
> |  extra:       convert_revision=:15968
> |  description:
> |  Import NetBSD ftp 20230505
> [...]
> 
> 
> So 2479 doesn't really reflect the merge of 136, which is probably not
> a good thing.

This is correct. None of the conversion tools I am aware of create
proper merge commits, because the necessary information just is not
there in CVS.

We won't get them in the conversion. I agree that that's a pity, but
more the reason to switch to a better tool.
 Thomas