I agree to. As a developer, sometimes I need to trace the revision history and
try to understand why a certain change was in in place. Since this is an Open
Source Project, it may be hard to find the original developer and inquire his
rationale behind, so the revision history is very important (at least to me.)
So if we cannot keep the revision history after the rename, then I would vote -1
for this proposal.
Tinny
"Peter A. Volchek" wrote:
> > One comment: as a paranoid version-control freak, I'd strongly discourage
> > renaming repository directories. It's bad policy, and can make it
> difficult
> > or impossible to reconstruct a prior release. Such reconstructions are one
> > of the primary motivations for having version control in the first place.
> > The clean thing to do is what Arnaud characterized as the "official" way:
> > check out the tip from the existing locations, then check in to the new
> > location. If it's deemed important to keep all the revision history
> intact,
> > I'd advocate cloning the repositories (which obviously has its own
> > problems). Renaming the existing repository directories should be avoided
> if
> > at all possible.
> >
>
> Agree.
> This is the only reason why I vote -1
>
> Peter A. Volchek
> Software Engineer
> Metis International, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
