Conversion to SVN

[Ulrich Spörlein]

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 15:44:27 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> 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.  

That hardly explains anything. Numbers for /head et al. are
monotonically increasing. Numbers for /doc inside the src-svn would be
monotonically increasing.

> > > 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.

I never said we should do that.

Cheers,
Uli