Hello! On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:50:58PM +0100, I wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 09:38:20AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 12:05:07AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > Only convert GNU Mach's gnumach-1-branch, GNU MIG's HEAD, GNU Hurd's > > > HEAD. > > > > > > With the exception of the GNU Mach Xen branch and the Hurd GSoC > > > branches, these are the only branches that see active development. > > > > So? No need to drop dead branches -- they can still be interesting for > > reference. > > The old CVS repositories will of course remain available for history > inspection. I consider the new git repositories mostly for a > looking-forward perspective.
Re-visiting this again. I think I came to the conclusion that if one considers my point of view or intention for the new repositories (given just above), then my reasoning is correct. If one, however as you others do, indeed want to preserve the whole history in the new git repositories (so that one might in theory be able to ditch the CVS repositories), then your reasoning is absolutely valid. I can, of course, bow to the latter intention if that is the general consensus. That libpthread should be split of (before doing the conversion) is OK for everyone? Regards, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
