This site is now 100% read-only, and retired.

XML logo

Migration to mercurial
Posted by Steve on Sat 24 Nov 2007 at 21:32

My migration over to mercurial (away from CVS) is going well.

So far I've moved the code which generates our planet - the next job is to move the code behind the main site.

I'm getting the hang of the migrations now, having moved several projects.

All being well my CVS server will be empty within the week.

 

Comments on this Entry

Re: Migration to mercurial
Posted by eric (82.251.xx.xx) on Sat 24 Nov 2007 at 22:34
[ View Weblogs ]
What tool are you using to convert CVS to Mercurial? Does it do the job well (maintaining all the history, etc)?

:eric:
http://blog.sietch-tabr.com

[ Parent ]

Re: Migration to mercurial
Posted by Steve (82.32.xx.xx) on Sat 24 Nov 2007 at 23:16
[ View Weblogs ]

I'm using a tool called Tailor, via this howto.

All history is preserved and it is mostly painless. Just a little slow.

Steve

[ Parent ]

Re: Migration to mercurial
Posted by drgraefy (74.66.xx.xx) on Mon 26 Nov 2007 at 12:48
[ View Weblogs ]
Hi, Steve. Can you give a brief explanation as to why you chose to use mercurial over other version control systems, such as specifically svn? I've been having a lot of discussions at work about version control systems. I'm personally a huge fan of svn, but I've actually never used any of these decentralized systems, like git or mercurial.

[ Parent ]

Re: Migration to mercurial
Posted by Steve (80.68.xx.xx) on Mon 26 Nov 2007 at 13:02
[ View Weblogs ]

My later reply to ajt probably sums it up pretty well...

Steve

[ Parent ]

Re: Migration to mercurial
Posted by ajt (204.193.xx.xx) on Mon 26 Nov 2007 at 12:53
[ View Weblogs ]
Why did you pick Mercurial, rather than the more typical upgrade path to Subversion/SVK?

I'm just curious, as I plan to migrate off CVS when I eventually deploy a new server at home and was planning on a svn/svk solution. Work is currently in the process of moving from CVS to SVN, which is partly why I was thinking of doing the same.

--
"It's Not Magic, It's Work"
Adam

[ Parent ]

Re: Migration to mercurial
Posted by Steve (80.68.xx.xx) on Mon 26 Nov 2007 at 13:01
[ View Weblogs ]

I don't consider subversion as anything other than than a slight improvement over CVS. In my opinion subversion was designed to look, feel, and behave much like CVS but with a few minor changes such as atomic commit, and rename-tracking.

It seems to me that if you're going to migrate away from CVS that you should pick something significantly better than it, not just something witha few of the issues fixed.

For me that means distributed.

That immediately limitted my choice to three systems:

  • darcs
  • git
  • mercurial

(There are more distributed systems, I ignored them.)

Darcs is adequate, but I use it at work and we've had problems with memory usage when merging changesets, also permissions issues are a recurring problem. (Probaby this is more our fault than darcs's)

Git in theory I like, but in practise the need to "repack" the repository to stop it from consuming disk space is a big issue. So is the sheer number of commands and the possability of cnfusion.

So mercurial pretty much win by default! Having said that mercurial does have a lot of nice things to recommend it, and I'm enjoying it a lot. The only minor problem is that the version in etch doesn't support symlinks; but a backport of the version which does is available on backports.org.

Steve

[ Parent ]

Re: Migration to mercurial
Posted by ajt (204.193.xx.xx) on Mon 26 Nov 2007 at 13:39
[ View Weblogs ]
I can see your logic, it make sense to me. Why have 110% when you can get 200% for the same/similar level of pain?

At work it's more a case of which has the least possible risk? what is the herd doing? - we'll do that. I'm not saying it's a better or worse approach but as a general rule we're fairly conservative in how we change things - if we get it wrong people could die.

--
"It's Not Magic, It's Work"
Adam

[ Parent ]