Re: [Nano-devel] polished git repo

[Chris Allegretta]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Benno Schulenberg
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016, at 21:41, Kamil Dudka wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 14:28:47 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On 17 Feb 2016 20:03, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016, at 20:21, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > > > the history.  for keyword expansion, it's a bit non-trivial, but for 
>> > > > the
>> > > > svn metadata in the commit message, it's easy to trim.
>> > >
>> > > But when you remove that svn metadata, can git still synchronize
>> > > with svn?
>>
>> The sooner we stop synchronizing it with svn the better.
>
> Yes.  But Chris still has to give his go-ahead.  And we have to choose
> a moment, and first agree whether or not to include the git-svn-id tag
> in the commit message.  If those tags are the only way to find a given
> SVN revision in the git history, then they must stay.

I am fine with a conversion to git, I just was never as successful as
everyone else at getting the repo converted.  If someone else is
willing to do this work I'm happy for us to switch to it.

It would indeed be (or have been) good to switch at 2.5.0 or 2.6.0
rather than at a random version. We can also just bump the major
version at a convenient time for the switch; at this point there are
probably no earth-shattering features which would warrant a major
version bump anyway, so changing something as fundamental as the repo
seems like a good reason to do so. Perhaps after all the glib changes
go in and we have a couple consecutive releases without showstopper
bugs reported.

I've not been following this svn / git tag discussion closely enough
to comment, but clearly it would be important to have an entry in the
git repo for every SVN commit, ideally with the revision original SVN
commit number in the git commit msg.