Hi, On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:51:08AM -0400, Barry Wardell wrote: > * There are extra branches (e.g. start, v1) which are not in any way > connected to the rest of the history. These were created by the cvs2svn > script.
Yes. These branches did actually exist back in the cvs repos. I don't think any of these are important. > * Some of the commits creating tags also introduce changes to the tree > (files). These commits were automatically created by the cvs2svn script. Why is that a problem? Does the conversion choke if commits do multiple things at once? > * Some branches/tags (e.g. STABLE, LATEST) were not created at the same > time across different repositories. None of the ones that I encountered had > what I would useful content (e.g. having a STABLE tag pointing to some > point long in the past is not particularly useful). I agree. We would very likely be better off without them. > Could you suggest an example of a more "badly behaved" arrangement? I didn't mean that other arrangements are "badly behaved". I called CactusBase "well behaved" because it did not receive as many commits from not as many authors and some of the others probably did. EinsteinInitial, or GRHydro would be more "demanding" examples. Frank
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
