Michael Raskin wrote: > On 08/04/2010 09:35 PM, Marc Weber wrote: > If we wish to use history as something more than unlabeled graph, we > need to decide now - SVN to Git move can be a lossy operation. > >> However git is different anyway. Probably we're not going to have >> stdenv-anymore. We'll have branches such as gtk-updates xorg-updates, >> ... and maybe a branch called "next" which is a merge of those topics. > > You understand that you are just strengthening my point? I understand > that _any_ DVCS (probably even SVK) simplifies having lighter branches. > But Git considers OK to GC branch data. And no, it is not ignoring > historical branch data - as you claimed it does for simplicity - it > stores reflog and can be made to clean it. I am not even sure how much > of history rewriting is actually a good idea (as opposed to > cherry-picking from a local branch/a local-only second head of the > branch). > > Personally, I am promoting Monotone, as it has deliberately hard-to-lose > history, Just disable "force push" on server. > commit property authentication (i.e. you know who set what > tag), Git has signed tags and signed commits. > and also will allow us to have things like a branch (maybe > discontinuous) of revisions fully processed by Hydra. Explain, please.
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@cs.uu.nl https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev