Karl Fogel wrote:
> Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> writes:
>
>>> BTW, I just noticed that they also appear in branch names, say
>>> "branches/1.6.x-r40452".
>>>
>> So? It's all recorded in history, if necessary in read-only clones
>> of the old repository.
>>
>> There's projects that migrate to different version control tools,
>> and when they do this, they hit the same class of problems as you
>> are pointing out, just worse.
>>
>
> Many of these references can be fixed up. We are going to be adding an
> offset (i.e., if Subversion is imported when the ASF repository is
> already at rev N, then just add N to every rev reference). So in our
> log messages and bug comments, we can probably fix this up in a mostly
> automated way. I know we can for the log messages; I assume that for
> the bug exports we can too.
>
> There will still be references out there that are wrong, but at least
> the fix will always be clear: add N and you've got the new revnum.
>
Plus -- and this is the only reason the above argument can hold water --
there can't be any overlap between our current and our future revision
numbers, because the ASF repository already has an order of magniture
more revisions in it than we do.
-- Brane
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2416709
Received on 2009-11-11 20:26:49 CET