We can't be cornered into losing development history because we can't reorg our repository on the theory that it will confuse users. That's like saying we can't change API once it's committed.
If you don't think it's the right thing for all versions to live in one repository, that's one thing, but the fact that someone called the module httpd-2.0 doesn't mean we have to have a CVS repository with that name indefinitely. If we had switched to svn in the middle of 2.0, the HEAD of 2.0 wouldn't even be in CVS. Does that mean we can't switch to svn without closing out the current release? I'd say not.
-wsv
On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 01:55 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
They are evil in the sense that we jeopardize confusing both our users and developers with the branches. I don't believe we should rename the CVS repository (orphaning httpd-2.0). Even with your current proposal, it would silently morph all httpd-2.0 working copies to httpd (with implicit version 2.1). I don't think that's fair to our users who use CVS working copies. Our obligation to them should be that HEAD of httpd-2.0 contains, well, HEAD of httpd-2.0 not httpd > 3.9.
