On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 03:04:01PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Thomas Dickey wrote: > > > I've created a git-bundle, > > but it requires some discussion. > > Neat. My first impressions are that this looks nicer --- e.g., the > initial check-ins have meaningful messages now instead of just saying > RCS_BASE. > > Do I understand correctly that this covers the same revision history > as the old bundle (i.e., up to 2010-12-07), just imported more > accurately?
yes, except:
there's a t20101210 label for the copyrights
In reviewing the bundle with gitk, I noticed a "t20080909-base"
label which I seem to recall applying to help with my scripting
in January (not used currently).
The content of the commits in git is accurate (pulling out a label would
give identical results to the corresponding release from rcs).
> [...]
> > + In January I also worked (without much success) to develop a
> > script to splice my changes onto a copy of the git bundle that
> > you had published. There is more than one apparent problem
> > (aside from my own lack of git experience). With or without
> > the corrected RCS identifiers, the process fails due to merge
> > problems. I recall that this only gets about 60% through the
> > import. (I can of course provide you with the corresponding
> > scripts, and we can discuss better approaches to the problem).
>
> Yes, I'd be happy to look at the scripts (feel free to send a private
> email).
will do...
> [...]
> > + On a related thread, it was suggested that I get mawk into
> > savannah for using bug-tracking. When I investigated that,
> > I noticed that they rather insist on having each file marked
> > with copyrights. Both Mike and I had not done that as rigorously
> > as I think savannah wants. So...
>
> Oh. I didn't know Savannah was so picky. I guess it would also be
> useful for other pedantic legal teams that aren't willing to review
> the source control logs.
They have a checklist...
> > I made that change on top of
> > my 20101207 tag, calling that 20101210 (and kept the timestamps
> > on that date to avoid confusing git further). The tag is "old"
> > of course since it's solely done to mark copyrights as of that
> > date, and to avoid confusion with other changes that I have in
> > mind.
>
> When did you make this change? If not December of 2010, this is very
> confusing, so in that case please add a note to CHANGES mentioning
> when it happened. I think it's ok if the version number doesn't match
> the date but the date should be recorded somewhere.
hmm - I can add a note in a checkin-comment (the CHANGES file is generated) and
reissue the bundle if you like. (Having more than a hundred rcs id's saying
2012 on files using 2010 copyrights is not one of my preferred solutions).
> [...]
> > I think those are enough pieces in place that I can followup on
> > savannah; but have an idea that we need some discussion on how
> > to proceed for your idea of providing patches based on git.
> > (It would be nice if there were some way to record the transformation
> > from my rcs/git archive into yours so that I could generate a better
> > export).
>
> Yeah, unfortunately most of my tweaks were manual (e.g., splitting
> changes produced by the "indent" program from semantic changes). It
> would probably be possible to automate if I were less lazy.
hmm - I'll followup on this
--
Thomas E. Dickey <dic...@invisible-island.net>
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
