From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johan Herland Subject: Re: [RFC?] Telling git about more complex relationships between commits (Was: Re: FFmpeg considering GIT) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 14:30:09 +0200 Message-ID: <200705041430.09405.johan@herland.net> References: <81b0412b0705040236w1d5f26bx8ac351ade2f4ea6a@mail.gmail.com> <200705041239.22300.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Parkins X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 04 14:30:28 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hjwva-0008WS-Jz for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 04 May 2007 14:30:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751006AbXEDMaX (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 08:30:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753135AbXEDMaX (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 08:30:23 -0400 Received: from sam.opera.com ([213.236.208.81]:42099 "EHLO sam.opera.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754243AbXEDMaW (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 08:30:22 -0400 Received: from pc052.lan019.oslo.opera.com (pat-tdc.opera.com [213.236.208.22]) by sam.opera.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l44CU92i011090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 4 May 2007 12:30:09 GMT User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 In-Reply-To: <200705041239.22300.andyparkins@gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.1/3204/Thu May 3 18:46:39 2007 on sam.opera.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Friday 04 May 2007, Andy Parkins wrote: > As for custom headers - it's a great idea; here's the one that would be > most useful: > > X-Git-SVN-ID: 9553f0bf-9b14-0410-a0b8-cfaf0461ba5b > > That way git-svn wouldn't (necessarily) need to keep its .rev_db file, and > it wouldn't need any special handling to allow the repository to be cloned. That's _exactly_ the kind of use of this I'd like to see. Great example. :) Have fun! ...Johan -- Johan Herland, www.herland.net