On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > I strongly suggest you move to git ASAP. It's not hard, though some > history can be lost in the move using off-the-shelf conversion tools. > (MIT Kerberos recently moved from SVN to git, and before that, from > CVS to SVN, and they seem to have done a lot of manual cleanup to > avoid some losses of history. You might want to talk to them if this > is a problem for you, though, frankly, I think it shouldn't be, after > all you can still keep CVS around for archeology...) > > That would be a great first step towards making contributions easier, > since then patches can be posted in the form of git branches, pull > requests, and formatted patches e-mailed or attached to RT. And > refreshing older patches would be much easier too.
This is exactly what we've agreed to do. Well, no particular agreement around RT yet, but the git part. _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
