<div>On 11/21/06, Jelmer Vernooij <<a href="mailto:jelmer@samba.org">jelmer@samba.org</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 07:16 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 15:38 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > > I have bzr 0.12 on Debian Sarge. > > Sorry, that looks like bitrot. The latest version of svn2bzr I have > > worked on worked with bzr 0.8 and there have been a lot of API changes > > between 0.8 and 0.12. I am no longer maintaining svn2bzr, I work on > > bzr-svn (<a href="http://launchpad.net/products/bzr-svn"> http://launchpad.net/products/bzr-svn</a>) these days. > given that bzr-svn is intrinsically more complex because of the > roundtrip support etc, do you think there is value in having svn2bzr > maintained for 'we're converting kthnxbye' scenarios ? Yes, I think there is certainly use for svn2bzr. For example, things like rename support are much easier to support in svn2bzr than in bzr-svn. I also think svn2bzr should use the python-subversion bindings (one of my svn2bzr branches does so and is significantly smaller and less bug-prone than the original). </blockquote></div> Just as another datapoint, I tried to use svn2bzr to convert some svn trees last week with no luck, so I tried using bzr-svn, but found it too hard to get working on Gentoo (because of the subversion python bindings patch), so I finally ended up using Tailor, which had it's own problems, but I was finally able to get the repo converted.