On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 12:15 -0800, Andrew Fish wrote: > > So I'd say my vote is: > 1) Move to git if we can preserve the metadata in svn.
Yes, git can preserve all the data that SVN has. It's fairly much a no-brainer to move from running the git tree as an automated mirror of the SVN tree, to just forgetting all about the pain of SVN and continuing to commit directly to that git tree instead. It's the git->svn conversion (which is basically what we're doing at the moment, since everyone seems to be *actually* working in git anyway) which is lossy, because SVN can only handle a single stream of changes; no divergence and merges. This is particularly suboptimal because it effectively rewrites history. My own commits no longer exist in the form that I made and tested them; they get committed on top of whatever *other* work happened in the SVN tree before I finally got them merged. So tools like 'git bisect' no longer work. They might indicate that a problem was introduced by one of my changes when in *fact* it didn't occur then at all in the original; it was a combination of my changes *and* the other changes that ended up in the repository before my patch was merged. With git preserving *full* history, the blame gets clearly laid at the *merge* where it should be, and the merge is visible as a separate step in the revision history. -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan
_______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
