Re: [Nano-devel] polished git repo

[Benno Schulenberg]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016, at 17:31, Chris Allegretta wrote:
> I am fine with a conversion to git, I just was never as successful as
> everyone else at getting the repo converted.  If someone else is
> willing to do this work I'm happy for us to switch to it.

Okay.  You say when, because you will have to upload the repo
to Savannah (and delete the broken git repo that is there first).

(By the way, Savannah has been dead-slow for something like
a week now.  Does anyone know what's going on?)

> It would indeed be (or have been) good to switch at 2.5.0 or 2.6.0
> rather than at a random version. We can also just bump the major
> version at a convenient time for the switch; at this point there are
> probably no earth-shattering features which would warrant a major
> version bump anyway, so changing something as fundamental as the repo
> seems like a good reason to do so. Perhaps after all the glib changes
> go in and we have a couple consecutive releases without showstopper
> bugs reported.

I think the conversion to gnulib will be a good reason to
call it 2.6.  And do the move to git at the same time -- or
rather, just before, so that Mike will be properly credited
as the author of all those commits.

> I've not been following this svn / git tag discussion closely enough
> to comment, but clearly it would be important to have an entry in the
> git repo for every SVN commit, ideally with the revision original SVN
> commit number in the git commit msg.

Okay.  I just thought these lines were unesthetic and distracting,
but if there is no other way to find back the commit that belongs
to a certain SVN revision, then let them stay.

Benno

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - The way an email service should be