Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
From: "Bert Huijben" <bert@qqmail.nl>
To: "'Stefan Sperling'" <stsp@elego.de>,
	"'Greg Stein'" <gstein@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Eric Raymond'" <esr@thyrsus.com>,
	<dev@subversion.apache.org>
References: <20160202234208.B098313A0E4A@snark.thyrsus.com>
 <CABD8fLWQetJ5BCbMr1QBhsL5fFVSg0qTgyaXBPAtO0=VsMEPaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160203014503.GA17154@thyrsus.com>
 <CABD8fLUiFp9pBsPWC6Wr7a4qyPbnBJaqrh+6j_KqzU5LW1vb9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160203081817.GG268@ted.stsp.name>
In-Reply-To: <20160203081817.GG268@ted.stsp.name>
Subject: RE: svncutter can be removed
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 13:55:20 +0100
Message-ID: <06d501d15e82$25478aa0$6fd69fe0$@qqmail.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: nl
Thread-Index: AQIHp0zqZ30xSBFA9/wnjk4hO3zfhgHtSep7AawkjV0DJYsVJgHR/OsJnmks9kA=


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:stsp@elego.de]
> Sent: woensdag 3 februari 2016 09:18
> To: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
> Cc: Eric Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com>; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svncutter can be removed
> 
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 07:48:53PM -0600, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> > > Because of the difference between Subversion and DVCS branching
> models,
> > > this kind of situation is better handled by using svncutter to extract
> > > the components into separate dumpfiles (and then perocessing each one
> > > through reposugeon separately) than it would be by reading in the
whole
> > > repo at once and doing the dissection in gitspace.
> > >
> >
> > Gotcha. How is that different from "svndumpfilter include" ?
> 
> I would guess it handles missing copyfrom sources more intelligently
> than "svndumpfilter include", which simply errors out when it hits
> that case (svndumpfilter: E200003: Invalid copy source path '/foo').

In my experience using svndumpfilter without --drop-*, but without
--renumber-revs is the most likely cause of these problems. Forgetting to
add that flag just creates invalid dumpfiles, so I don't think we should
have allowed that scenario. (Where is my time machine?)

BTW: svndumpfilter existed since Subversion 1.0, so it certainly predates
2009. Not sure about when its specific features were introduced though.


	Bert