Jeff King <p...@peff.net>:
> A much more compelling argument to me would be that you are doing some
> bidirectional magic between git and svn, and you want to make make sure
> that an svn->git->svn translation will result in the exact same bytes.
> Then the argument is still "because SVN has it", but at least it is "and
> we interoperate with it" and not simply chasing a cool but useless
Er, well, that *is* in fact the exact reason I want it.
I didn't put it exactly that way because I didn't expect anyone here
to particularly care about round-tripping like that. But remember
that I do a lot of stuff with repo surgery and conversion tools.
As a matter of fact (and this list is the first to hear about it)
I'm working on code right now that massages a git import stream
into a Subversion dumpfile. Soon, unless I hit a blocker I'm
not expecting, I'll ship it.
Yes, there will be serious limitations and unavoidable metadata loss.
But in every case *except timestamps* that loss is Subversion's fault
for having a weak ontology. Timestamps are the one place git doesn't
hold up its end.
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html