Re: onwards to git

[Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gnu dot org>]

Hello!

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:27:57AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Immediately after the release of 2.10 on 5/9 we'll switch over the 
> master and *only* repository for glibc to git.

Nice!  This will hopefully faciliate the management of larger external
patch-sets against the master repository.


> We'll recreate the git archive once more from scratch.

Doing so, consider fixing this: there are, in May 1996 for example, a
bunch of commits attributed to mib <uco-mib@gmx.at>, which is wrong -- as
it can be seen from the committed ChangeLog entries, these commits should
be attributed to Michael I. Bushnell, p/BSG <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>.


> Since the git archive will contain all the useful history there is no 
> reason to keep the cvs archive online forever.  I would like to retire 
> it in the not too distant future entirely.
> 
> 
> What we do need for the migration is a list of the useful branches in 
> the cvs archive.  Send them along to this list by 5/8.  If reasonable, 
> we'll include those branches in the git archive.  There is certainly a 
> lot of junk in cvs and we want to use this opportunity for some house 
> cleaning.

Certainly only the master (former HEAD) branch is the one that is
relevant for continuing development on.  I'm okay with only publishing
that on in the main Git repository.

However, for example, the release branches (glibc-X-branch) -- aren't
they worth preserving for documentation purposes?  (I don't need them
personally.)  But instead of publishing them in the Git repository, I
would rather tend to keep the read-only CVS repository on-line, and not
retire it as you suggested.


Regards,
 Thomas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature