Markus Schiltknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
> Right. For every tag and branchpoint which cannot be matched to > exactly only one revision, you'll have to add an artificial revisions > which you can tag. (AFAICT, git allows such an artificial revision to > have multiple parents, monotone does only allow two parentsn. So for > monotone, you'll have to add multiple artificial revisions). I don't think monotone has such a restriction. I think it happens not to create such revisions at present, but I don't think there's any intrinsic requirement that a revision has at most two parents. I imagine an importer from cvs2svn would use "automate put_revision" or something, and I suspect that'll be happy with any number of parent revisions. > For branchpoints, it's quite clear that such artificial revisions for > those can go into the branch they initiate. But for tags, you'll > probably have to create an 'artificial' branch, or not assign any > branch cert to those revisions. Yes, I think the former. I think it would be natural to have them on a branch, maybe one named relative to the tag name. (Or identical to the tag name, as you did with git.) >> (In git it's normal for a branch to contain divergence in its past, > > Uh.. what do you mean by that? I mean the graph of a branch may not be linear, but will (by definition) only have one head. Such a thing will be the result of a merge, and at that point the two (or more) things being merged would normally be distinct branches. In monotone it's normal just to let a branch fork for short periods, but in git that doesn't really make sense---each of the forks is a separate branch. _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
