Re: Better interoperability with Bitkeeper for fast-import/-export
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 15:56:06 -0600
- From: Philip Prindeville <philipp_subx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Better interoperability with Bitkeeper for fast-import/-export
> On Jul 3, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Philip,
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Philip Prindeville
> <philipp_subx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I tried to import into git a repo that I was working on (because it just seemed easier), but when I tried to export the repo back out after making my changes I found it choking on a few things.
>> It was explained to me (by the Bitkeeper folks) that git meta-data doesn’t accurately track file moves… If a file disappears from one place and reappears in another with the same contents, that’s assumed to be a move.
>> Given that “git mv” is an explicit action, I’m not sure why that wouldn’t be explicitly tracked.
> Not a full explanation, but see
Why not add the logic to track moves/renames? That link explains what it does, but not why it does it.
>> But I’ve not looked too closely under the covers about how git represents stuff, so maybe there’s more to it than I’m assuming.
>> During an export using “-M” and “-C”, Bitkeeper complained:
> Why would you add -C? Does bitkeeper also track copies?
I figure that I’d furnish the maximum amount of meta data, and bitkeeper would use what it could and ignore the rest.
>> fast-import: line 'R ports/winnt/libntp/nt_clockstuff.c ports/winnt/ntpd/nt_clockstuff.c' not supported
>> so I tried removing those two options, and it got further, this time stalling on:
>> fast-import: Unknown command: tag ntp-stable
> If the fast-import command you are using can't read tags, then perhaps
> you should report that to the authors of the fast-import tool you are
> using and/or only feed branches to your fast-export command.
Well, I’ll just do branches for now…
>> I like git, mostly because I’ve used it a lot more… and I like the GitHub service. I use Bitkeeper because a few projects I work on are already set up to use it and it’s not my call whether it’s worth the effort to make the conversion or live with it.
>> So… this is an appeal for both to play better together.
>> What’s involved in getting git to track file/directory moves/renames so that it’s palatable to Bitkeeper?
> Not tracking file/directory moves/renames wasn't an oversight but a
> fundamental design decision; see e.g.
"I'm convinced that git handles renames better than any other SCM ever.
Exactly because we figure it out when it matters.”
I disagree. When the move happens, there’s a commit message that goes along with that. There’s an insight into why the move is happening.
That’s something that software can’t do for you.
> However, supposing that we did track renames, how would we tell
> bitkeeper? Well, we'd print out a line that looks like this in the
> 'R ports/winnt/libntp/nt_clockstuff.c ports/winnt/ntpd/nt_clockstuff.c'
> which is precisely the line that bitkeeper's fast-import was choking
> on. So, it sounds like they don't support importing rename
> information (or at least the version of fast-import you're using
> doesn't). I think this is where the bug is; you'll probably want to
> report it to whoever maintains the fast-import command that is choking
> on this line.
Not sure I understand the response:
"The rename info that git gives us is a guess, that’s why there is that 0-100% next to it, that’s showing you how much of the two versions of the file were identical. So that info is unreliable, it’s just a guess."
Okay, what’s stopping them from doing their best with the information provided, even if it is a guess?
By the way, what happens when you interactively rebase a bunch of commits, change their order, and in the middle of an “edit”, do a “git mv … …” followed by a “git commit --amend && git rebase --continue”?
> Once that's fixed, you can export from git with the -M flag, and from
> that output, there'll be no way to tell whether the original
> repository tracked renames or detected them after the fact.
> Hope that helps,