On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 08:59:04PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Derek Scherger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Felipe Contreras > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >> As I said, my objective is to generate git clone for people to > >> >> develop/follow/maintain instead of the mtn repo, in this case there no > >> >> need to have every single bit of information since the mtn repo would > >> >> still be available. > >> > > >> > Does a bit of "extra" information hurt this use-case somehow? > >> > >> Yes, because you see two changelogs appended instead of one, possibly > >> with the comments too. It doesn't look like a native git repo. > >> > >> >> On the other hand, when a project moves away from mtn to git, then > >> >> your method makes more sense. > > > > It seems to me that this directly contradicts your previous statement, that > > "looking like a native git repo" is somehow important for a mirrored > > repository and yet unimportant for a converted repository. Nonetheless, I'm > > tired of arguing about this and I've added a --use-one-changelog option that > > picks one and uses it. I will be very surprised if anyone else ever uses > > this option but it's harmless. > > Appending two changelogs will never look 'natural', besides, some > people might not like the way two changelogs are appended. I think > that's the kind of decision that a team should do when converting a > repository. I'm just mirroring, I don't want to think about that, just > produce something that looks good and it's functional.
It's important that information be round-trip-stable. That is, if info goes fom git to monotone, back to get, back to monotone, at some point it should stop changing. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
