Hello,
Our team works on an existing project that's in CVS, but we don't have

the permissions to commit directly to it. We still need to make

changes and want to stay as up to date as possible, so we are trying

to use git to track the CVS repository and to collaborate inside the

team.
Now, I'm quite new to git, so I'm not sure if the solution I created

is "correct", not way too complicated, or if there are problems waiting

for us.
git-cvsimport seems to be the solution, so I've established the

following structure:
+-----------------+

| dev.eclipse.org |

+-----------------+

        ^

        | (1)

        |         (2)                      (3)

+---------------+      +---------------+        +------------+

| ifs:/from-cvs | ---> | ifs:/git-proj | <----- | Merge-Dude |

+---------------+      +---------------+        +------------+

                          /           \

                         /             \

                        /               \

                    +------+         +------+

                    | User |   (4)   | User |

                    +------+         +------+
1) I use git-cvsimport to update the repository every night. /git-proj

   is a "clone --bare" of the /from-cvs repository.
2) After the import, I push the changes from CVS to /git-proj using

   'git push /git-proj origin'.
This first two steps can be done with a cronjob, there shouldn't be

any conflicts.
3) Then we have the role of a "Merge-Dude" who pulls the changes from

   /git-proj and uses 'git merge origin/origin' to update his master.

   If there are any conflicts, he resolves them and pushes everything

   back to the master at /git-proj.
4) The users can just push and pull from /git-proj.
From time to time, we can use 'git diff origin/origin' to get a patch

with all the changes we made and have to send upstream.
What do you guys think, is this approach feasible?
What I don't like is how we have to make the upstream patch(es). Is

there an easy way we can g...
[ message continues ]

You could simplify this by just cvsimporting to an 'upstream' branch in
And then it works the same: he just pulls 'upstream' occasionally,

merges it into your work, and then pushes the result.
-Peff

--

Hm, I've tried that, but it doesnt seem to work.. git-proj is a bare

repository, and git-cvsimport always creates a new .git in it. I'm using

the -C option to specify the target. Is anything else needed?
Regards
Mirko
--

Ah, I hadn't thought of that. Apparently git-cvsimport doesn't

understand bare repos. There is even a Debian bug reported:
  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=472873
You might be able to hack around it with:
  mkdir bare.git && (cd bare.git && git init)

  mkdir cvsimport-hack && ln -s ../bare.git cvsimport-hack/.git

  git cvsimport -C cvsimport-hack
-Peff

--

Uh, ok.. :) Thanks. 
I just wondered, do I even need the additional bare repository? If I use

git-cvsimport with -i, then it creates only the .git without doing a

checkout, then we could just clone this one from the clients and pull/push to

it?
Thanks
Mirko

--

Sure. From the client perspective, there's not really a difference

between a bare repo and one with a working directory. Using just one

repo with a working directory will mean you just have one extra checkout

on the server, which wastes a little space.
-Peff

--

Ok, but in my case I have the checkout on the server in any case, whether I

push it to the bare repository or use it directly.
Thanks again
Mirko

--

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 04:33:34PM +0200, Mirko Stocker <mirko.stocker@hsr.=
Don't you mean origin/master?
In general, if you don't merge your changes but you rebase on top of the

new upstream head, then you can use 'git format-patch origin/master..'

to create patches for each commit.
It'll include the commit message and each commit will be written out as

a separate file.

Hm, I'm not sure.. if I work on an a feature in a branch, and now I want to

create a patch that applies to the CVS head, then I have to make the diff to 
Ah, I didn't know about git-rebase, thanks! That's exactly what I wanted :) I

think I've already fallen in love with git.

--

I'm in a team that is all CVS.  I'm the only one using git.
I don't think there is a 'wrong' way.  'Whatever works' is the motto.

The configuration should match the workflow.  So, I don't have any

comment on yours.  I thought I'd share mine, in case there is value.  I

think I will learn something
My setup is:
+----------+

| cvs repo |

+----------+

     |

     | (1)

     |

+----------+

| /cvs_git |

+----------+

     |

     | (2)

    \|/

+---------------------+   (5)   +--------------------+

| john's private repo |-------->| john's public repo |

+---------------------+         +--------------------+

     |

     | (3)

    \|/

+--------------------+

| john's cvs sandbox |

+--------------------+

     |

    \|/ (4)

+----------+

| cvs repo |

+----------+
(1) git-cvsimport -i ...
Runs in cron every 30 minutes.
The output git repo is on a shared server.  git users (me) can clone/fetch/pull.
The git repo for cvs is purely one way: no commits are to be pushed to

this repo.  All content comes from the cvs repo.
This is importing ALL branches from CVS because it git users (me)

require access to all cvs branches. 
(2) git clone -o cvs 
Using -o, my private repo uses 'cvs' as the name of the git remote that

tracks cvs.  This lets me do 'git fetch cvs', which feels right.
And, to create a branch from the cvs head branch:
'git checkout -b br cvs/origin'
(3) git cvsexportcommit

(4) cvs commit
These close the loop: my changes are committed to cvs repo.

Alternatively, the loop can be closed by emailing patch files to a cvs

committer.
(5) git push public
'public' is the name of my public repo.  The commits I push to public

are for developers that are using git (currently zero) who want to see

my work before it gets to cvs' head (which is under high contention).
I expect my team members to push to their one public repo.  Then I can

do: 'git fetch alice' to get Alice's work.
At the end of all this, when I do a 'git branch -...
[ message continues ]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:43:36PM +0200, Mirko Stocker <m1stocke@hsr.ch> w=
'origin/origin' means the 'origin' branch of the 'origin' remote. Given

that you said you created the 'origin' remote's repo using

git-cvsimport, I assumed that the 'origin' remote has only one branch

(named 'master').

Hm, git-cvsimport created a master and an origin branch. And then I push the

origin branch to the bare repository to share it with my colleagues. So for

the users, origin/origin contains the original CVS content, so we need to

make the diff against that, don't we? That's how I think this whole thing

works, I might be wrong :-)

--

Oh, you are right. Sorry for the noise. I forgot that git-cvsimport

creates an origin branch without -o master.