Re: onwards to git

[Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>]

> Not unless you see there's a missing tag.
> The value in keeping the existing SHA1 hashes
> outweighs that of a few omitted tags (which could
> probably be reconstructed anyway, if desired).

Ok.  I think we are fine with manual fiddling for tags.  (ports is a fairly
tiny repository to deal with either way.)  AFAICT, there are no tags at all
in git.  The only cvs tags are the release and branch-base tags, of which
there are just a few (and we'll change the naming convention for tags we
use in git, anyway).

> I've found it's useful to manage the switch like this:
> 
>   1) announce that the git repo is now "upstream"
>   2) add a commit hook prohibiting commits to the cvs repository
>   3) stop the cvs-to-git mirroring process
>   4) cvs-remove all files and add a sole file, README-moved-to-git

Frankly I don't think this level of formality is really needed for ports.
But I suppose it won't hurt.

> I've done stpes 2-4 several times, mostly on savannah-based
> repositories, as projects have switched, so can do it pretty
> efficiently, if you'd like.  Just say when.

I'll let you know.


Thanks,
Roland