| 1 |
I guess it boils down to priority. History becomes inconvenient to trace |
| 2 |
at some point. That's true for most human things...nothing is perfect. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
seemantk empathic design |
| 5 |
http://seemantk.com |
| 6 |
On Oct 5, 2014 10:48 PM, "Ulrich Mueller" <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> >>>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2014, Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > Libraries don't have to be sad. If the history remains in a CVS |
| 11 |
> > repo isn't that the perfect home for it in the museum of gentoo's |
| 12 |
> > history? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Having the complete history in a single repository would be much |
| 15 |
> preferable, even if that history is not perfect. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> It's annoying if you search for the point when some change was |
| 18 |
> performed, only to find that the repo's history doesn't reach back |
| 19 |
> that far. I've had this issue e.g. with the Portage repository whose |
| 20 |
> history was cut off at some point. Having to change tools (from git to |
| 21 |
> cvs) in addition doesn't make it better. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Ulrich |
| 24 |
> |
Archives