Conversion to SVN

[John Baldwin]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 3:21:25 pm Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 13:01:36 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > Also, I think the discontinuous history idea is a compelling reason to not put
> > the doc/www history into source svn.  Right now svn changes move forward
> > continuously with time (so change N + 1 is "newer" than change N), but
> > importing doc+www history as changes that are subsequent to the current top of
> > tree would break that.
> 
> And? Seriously, does anything depend on that? Sure the "50k revision
> number bump" is not exactly nice, but I honestly don't see a problem
> with it.

Humans depend on it.  

> > OTOH, renumbering the current tree to put the doc+www
> > history in the "right" place is simply not workable now.  Importing doc+www
> > into the current SVN is something that would have needed to be done during the
> > initial CVS -> SVN conversion, but that ship has sailed.
> 
> What's sad is, that there never will be a final VCS for FreeBSD. So
> while currently all commit messages that refer to some RCS revisions are
> rather useless, there will come a time, post-SVN, when all references to
> SVN revisions are useless.

People importing from our svn into another system will get massive, massive
confusion if we renumbered our depot.  That is why we can't renumber it at
this point.

-- 
John Baldwin