On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 07:26:13AM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, Apr 05 2010, Thomas Adam wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 09:16:20AM +1000, Kathryn Andersen wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 06:04:48PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > >> > I will of course be responsible for keeping this branch synched so that > >> > its > >> > eventual merging with the tip of HEAD will be seamless [0]. > >> > > >> > -- Thomas Adam > >> > > >> > [0] This is CVS -- what am I saying? It's going to suck. :P Oh, if > >> > only > >> > we were using Git... > >> > >> It wouldn't be impossible to change over; CVS -> SVN -> GIT > >> I know, I know, it would still be a huge and painful effort. > >> > >> Would it make sense to make a clean break with 2.60? Leave the old > >> stuff in CVS, but on the 2.60 release, start with a completely new git > >> repository containing just the released 2.60 code, and continue on from > >> there? > > > > Sometimes, questions are meant to be rhetorical. :) > > If they were not, git does provide a means of converting CVS > over to git, and then provides a fake CVS server that reads from a git > backend. I won't say it is painless, but it has been known to work > well.
You're not telling me things I don't already know, given I am already involved in the Git project. Psychologically though, it's always fascinating to me how far shed-painting will pull people out of the woodwork, given the opportunity to voice an opinion which holds no real meaning/weight to do with the project concerned. I'll keep these opinions on file... :) Thanks. -- Thomas Adam P.S. I'd for for blue. Oh no, that's likely already taken. Damn. -- "It was the cruelest game I've ever played and it's played inside my head." -- "Hush The Warmth", Gorky's Zygotic Mynci.
