On 07/28/2011 08:42 PM, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
But, frankly, I can't see the need of having the CVS stuff at hand. It's
very hard to make sense of this historical data anyway, at least if you
haven't got a decade of OOo developer knowledge under the belt.
It's true that the conversion was lossy, but that was intentional! You
wouldn't believe how much cruft can accumulate in a decade of happy
coding. A full conversion of our old CVS repository into SVN resulted in
a SVN repository of about 90 GiB in size.
I know many developers only care about tip and maybe the head of
branches. It is what matters most and so people were able to develop
code long before VCS were available.
I disagree you need to have a decade of OOo developer knowledge to make
use of it. Quite the opposite indeed! If someone new wants to work on
some piece of code and isn't sure why it was coded that way then it is
extremely helpful to look at its commit comments and especially the
issue numbers mentioned there. The info in the issue and the attached
documents often show corner use cases that better be handled properly
even when the code is to be refactored.
Have a look at e.g.
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/shortlog/19d852424fb4
or
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/shortlog/a70e5539c48b
I don't believe for a second that someone who is interested in the use
cases and history of some piece of some code will be happy when he finds
a "CWS-TOOLING: integrate CWS vcl92" and no way to find out what the
original commit comments were.
Herbert
