1Git for CVS users 2================= 3 4Ok, so you're a CVS user. That's ok, it's a treatable condition, and the 5first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. The fact that 6you are reading this file means that you may be well on that path 7already. 8 9The thing about CVS is that it absolutely sucks as a source control 10manager, and you'll thus be happy with almost anything else. Git, 11however, may be a bit _too_ different (read: "good") for your taste, and 12does a lot of things differently. 13 14One particular suckage of CVS is very hard to work around: CVS is 15basically a tool for tracking _file_ history, while git is a tool for 16tracking _project_ history. This sometimes causes problems if you are 17used to doing very strange things in CVS, in particular if you're doing 18things like making branches of just a subset of the project. Git can't 19track that, since git never tracks things on the level of an individual 20file, only on the whole project level. 21 22The good news is that most people don't do that, and in fact most sane 23people think it's a bug in CVS that makes it tag (and check in changes) 24one file at a time. So most projects you'll ever see will use CVS 25_as_if_ it was sane. In which case you'll find it very easy indeed to 26move over to Git. 27 28First off: this is not a git tutorial. See Documentation/tutorial.txt 29for how git actually works. This is more of a random collection of 30gotcha's and notes on converting from CVS to git. 31 32Second: CVS has the notion of a "repository" as opposed to the thing 33that you're actually working in (your working directory, or your 34"checked out tree"). Git does not have that notion at all, and all git 35working directories _are_ the repositories. However, you can easily 36emulate the CVS model by having one special "global repository", which 37people can synchronize with. See details later, but in the meantime 38just keep in mind that with git, every checked out working tree will 39have a full revision control history of its own. 40 41 42Importing a CVS archive 43----------------------- 44 45Ok, you have an old project, and you want to at least give git a chance 46to see how it performs. The first thing you want to do (after you've 47gone through the git tutorial, and generally familiarized yourself with 48how to commit stuff etc in git) is to create a git'ified version of your 49CVS archive. 50 51Happily, that's very easy indeed. Git will do it for you, although git 52will need the help of a program called "cvsps": 53 54 http://www.cobite.com/cvsps/ 55 56which is not actually related to git at all, but which makes CVS usage 57look almost sane (ie you almost certainly want to have it even if you 58decide to stay with CVS). However, git will want at _least_ version 2.1 59of cvsps (available at the address above), and in fact will currently 60refuse to work with anything else. 61 62Once you've gotten (and installed) cvsps, you may or may not want to get 63any more familiar with it, but make sure it is in your path. After that, 64the magic command line is 65 66 git cvsimport -v -d <cvsroot> -C <destination> <module> 67 68which will do exactly what you'd think it does: it will create a git 69archive of the named CVS module. The new archive will be created in the 70subdirectory named <destination>; it'll be created if it doesn't exist. 71Default is the local directory. 72 73It can take some time to actually do the conversion for a large archive 74since it involves checking out from CVS every revision of every file, 75and the conversion script is reasonably chatty unless you omit the '-v' 76option, but on some not very scientific tests it averaged about twenty 77revisions per second, so a medium-sized project should not take more 78than a couple of minutes. For larger projects or remote repositories, 79the process may take longer. 80 81After the (initial) import is done, the CVS archive's current head 82revision will be checked out -- thus, you can start adding your own 83changes right away. 84 85The import is incremental, i.e. if you call it again next month it'll 86fetch any CVS updates that have been happening in the meantime. The 87cut-off is date-based, so don't change the branches that were imported 88from CVS. 89 90You can merge those updates (or, in fact, a different CVS branch) into 91your main branch: 92 93 git resolve HEAD origin "merge with current CVS HEAD" 94 95The HEAD revision from CVS is named "origin", not "HEAD", because git 96already uses "HEAD". (If you don't like 'origin', use cvsimport's 97'-o' option to change it.) 98 99 100Emulating CVS behaviour 101----------------------- 102 103 104So, by now you are convinced you absolutely want to work with git, but 105at the same time you absolutely have to have a central repository. 106Step back and think again. Okay, you still need a single central 107repository? There are several ways to go about that: 108 1091. Designate a person responsible to pull all branches. Make the 110repository of this person public, and make every team member 111pull regularly from it. 112 1132. Set up a public repository with read/write access for every team 114member. Use "git pull/push" as you used "cvs update/commit". Be 115sure that your repository is up to date before pushing, just 116like you used to do with "cvs commit"; your push will fail if 117what you are pushing is not up to date. 118 1193. Make the repository of every team member public. It is the 120responsibility of each single member to pull from every other 121team member. 122 123 124CVS annotate 125------------ 126 127So, something has gone wrong, and you don't know whom to blame, and 128you're an ex-CVS user and used to do "cvs annotate" to see who caused 129the breakage. You're looking for the "git annotate", and it's just 130claiming not to find such a script. You're annoyed. 131 132Yes, that's right. Core git doesn't do "annotate", although it's 133technically possible, and there are at least two specialized scripts out 134there that can be used to get equivalent information (see the git 135mailing list archives for details). 136 137Git has a couple of alternatives, though, that you may find sufficient 138or even superior depending on your use. One is called "git-whatchanged" 139(for obvious reasons) and the other one is called "pickaxe" ("a tool for 140the software archeologist"). 141 142The "git-whatchanged" script is a truly trivial script that can give you 143a good overview of what has changed in a file or a directory (or an 144arbitrary list of files or directories). The "pickaxe" support is an 145additional layer that can be used to further specify exactly what you're 146looking for, if you already know the specific area that changed. 147 148Let's step back a bit and think about the reason why you would 149want to do "cvs annotate a-file.c" to begin with. 150 151You would use "cvs annotate" on a file when you have trouble 152with a function (or even a single "if" statement in a function) 153that happens to be defined in the file, which does not do what 154you want it to do. And you would want to find out why it was 155written that way, because you are about to modify it to suit 156your needs, and at the same time you do not want to break its 157current callers. For that, you are trying to find out why the 158original author did things that way in the original context. 159 160Many times, it may be enough to see the commit log messages of 161commits that touch the file in question, possibly along with the 162patches themselves, like this: 163 164 $ git-whatchanged -p a-file.c 165 166This will show log messages and patches for each commit that 167touches a-file. 168 169This, however, may not be very useful when this file has many 170modifications that are not related to the piece of code you are 171interested in. You would see many log messages and patches that 172do not have anything to do with the piece of code you are 173interested in. As an example, assuming that you have this piece 174of code that you are interested in in the HEAD version: 175 176 if (frotz) { 177 nitfol(); 178 } 179 180you would use git-rev-list and git-diff-tree like this: 181 182 $ git-rev-list HEAD | 183 git-diff-tree --stdin -v -p -S'if (frotz) { 184 nitfol(); 185 }' 186 187We have already talked about the "--stdin" form of git-diff-tree 188command that reads the list of commits and compares each commit 189with its parents. The git-whatchanged command internally runs 190the equivalent of the above command, and can be used like this: 191 192 $ git-whatchanged -p -S'if (frotz) { 193 nitfol(); 194 }' 195 196When the -S option is used, git-diff-tree command outputs 197differences between two commits only if one tree has the 198specified string in a file and the corresponding file in the 199other tree does not. The above example looks for a commit that 200has the "if" statement in it in a file, but its parent commit 201does not have it in the same shape in the corresponding file (or 202the other way around, where the parent has it and the commit 203does not), and the differences between them are shown, along 204with the commit message (thanks to the -v flag). It does not 205show anything for commits that do not touch this "if" statement. 206 207Also, in the original context, the same statement might have 208appeared at first in a different file and later the file was 209renamed to "a-file.c". CVS annotate would not help you to go 210back across such a rename, but GIT would still help you in such 211a situation. For that, you can give the -C flag to 212git-diff-tree, like this: 213 214 $ git-whatchanged -p -C -S'if (frotz) { 215 nitfol(); 216 }' 217 218When the -C flag is used, file renames and copies are followed. 219So if the "if" statement in question happens to be in "a-file.c" 220in the current HEAD commit, even if the file was originally 221called "o-file.c" and then renamed in an earlier commit, or if 222the file was created by copying an existing "o-file.c" in an 223earlier commit, you will not lose track. If the "if" statement 224did not change across such a rename or copy, then the commit that 225does rename or copy would not show in the output, and if the 226"if" statement was modified while the file was still called 227"o-file.c", it would find the commit that changed the statement 228when it was in "o-file.c". 229 230[ BTW, the current versions of "git-diff-tree -C" is not eager 231 enough to find copies, and it will miss the fact that a-file.c 232 was created by copying o-file.c unless o-file.c was somehow 233 changed in the same commit.] 234 235You can use the --pickaxe-all flag in addition to the -S flag. 236This causes the differences from all the files contained in 237those two commits, not just the differences between the files 238that contain this changed "if" statement: 239 240 $ git-whatchanged -p -C -S'if (frotz) { 241 nitfol(); 242 }' --pickaxe-all 243 244[ Side note. This option is called "--pickaxe-all" because -S 245 option is internally called "pickaxe", a tool for software 246 archaeologists.]