--8D1TCnBmjJJF2KCx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 04:46:42PM -0400, David Maxwell wrote:
> Apparently some other projects just converted the
> head of development and say 'look back in CVS for the old stuff'.

This doesn't surprise me, especially for VCS's with such weak merging.

For small projects that do most development on mainline, and maybe
maintain a few release-train branches that just diverge until they're
retired, it can work fine.  Larger projects that do significant
development in side branches, and propagate from mainline several
times (our "sync with HEAD") before a final putback, sometimes seem to
"get it" better.

Not always, though - some people have become so accustomed to
developing such things separately that they've come to expect that
separate tools should be used, rather than expecting this to be
something a vcs should support. =20

Witness freebsd's use of perforce, and the huge mess of stuff
developed as "patches", especially for linux, and the tools that have
evolved to sustain this development model. (Call it dis-integrated
rather than dis-tributed development?) The development history of
these "patches" is typically thrown away (at best, kept separately)
when they're finally merged back to the "main" sources.

None of these things makes fixing the problem of correctly importing
cvs history any easier, but it does seem to diminish the motivation to
do so when people are apparently so readily accepting of such
information loss.

I've always assumed we're not so accepting, am I wrong?

--
Dan.
--8D1TCnBmjJJF2KCx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFGrl/aEAVxvV4N66cRAsGDAJ959XI4SI4nwNIjRy7sJv01m8UGqACfdaol
hZ4dU27WAF82waCHcE/QU1s=
=m++g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8D1TCnBmjJJF2KCx--