Hi Rom! Oliver Bock wrote, On 04.03.13 14:40:
At some point (rather sooner than later) we should decide how we're going to continue in order to avoid doubling the effort. In my migration attempt so far I didn't have to manually edit any patches for the reasons you described, naturally avoiding any accidental changes of content (incl. whitespaces). My approach also doesn't linearize/flatten history or change the order of things.
I prefer Olivers approach of changing the current history as little as possible.
The main reason is that there might work already been done based on the current history, e.g. branches. The more changes you make to the old history, the less likely it is that in the new history you will find a point (i.e. commit) that corresponds to the state of the whole tree that your previous work refers to, e.g. the commit where your branch forks off, and which you could use to re-implant your branches to.
Since we, E@H, really do care about BOINC's code base and history I could offer to continue my effort until our repo is in sync with upstream.
I would vote for accepting the offer and let Oliver finish the migration. Best, Bernd _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
