Rafael.Vanoni wrote: > The folks scm-migration-dev have been discussing the problem with the > powertop gate on their alias, I'm forwarding the last couple > of emails here. > > We have two choices: (a) re-create the repo from ON or (b) ask Mark to > try and preserve the gate history by restoring it manually. > > I'm okay with (a). What do you think ? > > Rafael >
(a) is okay to me, but I'll defer to Eric. He created the gate and contributed the major part of the code. Maybe he need to keep the history. -Aubrey > >> Mark J. Nelson wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 16, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Rafael Vanoni wrote: >>>> >>>> I believe it would be okay with us (the powertop team) to simply >>>> re-create the repository, if the problem is root caused and you >>>> feel there's no need to chase this issue down. We're currently in >>>> sync with ON. >>> >>> I don't have a problem with that as it's likely the easiest way to >>> go if you want to try it. >> >> I'll leave this up to the project team. >> >> If they want, I can take some time to work on helping them preserve >> history from the project gate. This will almost certainly look like >> "recreating every changeset from the onnv_82 merge onwards," most of >> which is pretty trivial, but the merges (one each for onnv_82 through >> onnv_113? I didn't check) will probably be manual, using info from >> an old repository and checking that they resolve the same. >> >> Or you can go the route of "new repo cloned from onnv_113," and go >> from there. In that case, I would assume that y'all will handle >> things yourselves. >> >> Please (Rafael), let me know either way. >> >> --Mark
