[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnucap-devel] gnucap development snapshot 2013-04-23
From: |
al davis |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnucap-devel] gnucap development snapshot 2013-04-23 |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:51:18 -0400 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.32-5-amd64; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) |
On Thursday 25 April 2013, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> it's all about rebasing the history of gnucap-uf which i need
> to do somehow. that would be much easier without the
> directory breakage.
Ah .. Now you know why I put off the migration to Git, and kept
it in RCS for so long.
On Thursday 25 April 2013, Bas Gieltjes wrote:
> I know that there is no definitive choice made for a new
> revision control system,
Git seems to be the choice. Can anyone give me a real reason
for any other choice?
> but it is possible to move the RCS
> file history to git. A search gives several methods to move
> data from RCS to a new revision control, if the old commit
> history is important...
I know there are ways to do it.
The question .. should it be migrated?
To trace back to zero, over lots of changes, eventually it can
look like a big mess, so I think this is a place to make a
break.
Looking back, I was surprised at how many non-traceable changes
there are. Files are split. Files merge. When they do that,
what names to use?
At one point, I did a trial switchover to CVS (unpublished).
CVS is almost the same as RCS, so I thought it would be
transparent. It wasn't. CVS has a slightly different way of
numbering that was incompatible with the way I used version
numbers, which meant that checkouts were inconsistent. So, I
kept it in RCS. Another way to use the tags in RCS would have
worked, but not the way I did it, and what was done was done.
I think the same issues would come up with any migration.
Subtle differences would screw things up. So I think it is best
to keep the old stuff in RCS, now frozen, for the rare case when
somebody might actually want that old version.
Really long ago ... long before the transition from C to C++ ..
was the transition from Ratfor to C. You really don't want to
see the code that far back.
On Thursday 25 April 2013, Bas Gieltjes wrote:
> The
> (essential?) commit messages are missing and some commits
> contain a list of n's, no clue why those n's are included.
I didn't use the RCS commit messages, but rather mostly made
commits in sync with development snapshots, with release notes
having that info, often a whole page of it. I didn't see the
value of the one-liners that RCS supported.
Whether this was a good idea or not is irrelevant now.
Re: [Gnucap-devel] gnucap development snapshot 2013-04-23, address@hidden, 2013/04/25
Message not available
Message not available