[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Moving to git
From: |
Thomas Schwinge |
Subject: |
Re: Moving to git |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:51:39 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11 |
Hello!
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:05:52PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Olaf said some of the things I was thinking.
When replying there, I hope to have addressed your concerns as well.
> In short, I think this plan is too clever by half.
Thanks ;-). Indeed I spent some time on this issue, before I sent out my
email.
> Repository conversion is repository conversion.
Agreed.
> It's not an opportunity to rejigger the history.
Well. If we nevertheless have a service interruption (not that it'd
matter...), why not -- again: *before* doing the actual conversion -- fix
up some things as well? And, in fact, I had already suggested this
split-up like two years ago.
> It's a fundamental failure of what the repository is
> there for if it loses or divides the history.
See my other email.
> There is no problem with the size of the history.
Likewise, see my other email.
Regards,
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Merging branches (was: Moving to git), (continued)
Re: Moving to git, Thomas Schwinge, 2009/01/11
Re: Moving to git, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/01/16
Splitting the Hurd tree, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/01/16
Re: Moving to git, Roland McGrath, 2009/01/09
- Re: Moving to git, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2009/01/09
- Re: Moving to git,
Thomas Schwinge <=
Re: Moving to git, Roland McGrath, 2009/01/09