Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
On 27.12.2012 04:28, Daniel Pfeifer wrote: Wait, what? As far as I'm concerned, conversion to git that loses history is simply unacceptable. Version control is used for software development for a good reason. Not do I find it acceptable to impose history conversion task on every individual developer.
Can somebody from the Steering Committee clarify what's going on here?
Frankly, that particular piece of information is news to me as well. Granted nobody ever explicitly said history would be preserved in the process (as far as I remember), but neither did anybody explicitly say it would be lost. And I missed to ask about this - doh!
I agree losing history or having to manually preserve it is unacceptable.
Hmmm.. Let's suppose for a moment that the modularization effort resulted in a repository which didn't include the current history. There's no reason that the old SVN has to go way. I guess it could be made read only. It would also be convienient that the web browsing feature be re-enabled. That is, pre-history would still be available - just not a conveniently as now. Robert Ramey
Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost