On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 07:50, Michael Stahl <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05.07.2011 11:16, Herbert Duerr wrote: >... >> merged. Speaking of merges in SVN we regularly had the problem that a >> file was renamed in one CWS and changed in another CWS and the result >> was that the change got lost. HG or GIT handle this scenario much more >> gracefully, so there was less risk to do big merges. > > indeed, which led to effectively forbidding moving files in SVN... > i hope SVN has learned to signal a merge conflict for this nowadays?
It sure does. They are called "tree conflicts". In this particular case, you have an "incoming edit" to a file that doesn't exist. That will get flagged for conflict resolution. >... >> If the goal is to just merge the outstanding CWSs into trunk I'd suggest >> to stay with hg, merge all good CWSs into trunk and start the apache-ooo >> SVN repository from that trunk. >> >> If the goal is to preserve the trunk and CWSs of the old-OOo project >> then the idea to provide it as a read-only git repository is great, We only have one canonical repository at Apache, and that is Subversion. We should not be planning to create a Git repository... the read-only Git "repositories" are just mirrors of portions of the Subversion repository. >... Cheers, -g
