On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Jeff Law wrote: > > There are two approaches to conversion: (1) convert what's active and > > preserve the old system indefinitely for reference access; (2) convert > > everything 100% so the old system can be retired. > > > > It seems that Eric has been trying for #2, which is fine if doable. > > But #1 is also a reasonable option and if the nature of the beast > > makes #2 acceptable, going for #1 is a plan I would definitely > > support. > Yea. I suspect we'll keep the SVN repo around read-only essentially > forever so the links in bugzilla continue to work. There's probably > other uses of the SVN version #s that we'd like to preserve.
We'll obviously keep SVN around readonly just as with CVS. The problem described is not one for which only keeping a few selected branches would actually help at all. If we get to a point where everything converts OK except for a few obscure non-trunk branches that have problems (possibly mid-branch deletealls), then we can consider excluding those branches (starting from a baseline of keeping all branches that are still present in SVN, then identify particular problem branches to exclude). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
