From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: netfilter moving to git Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 18:28:37 +0200 Message-ID: <482B1335.30200@trash.net> References: <48299680.7020808@trash.net> <4829A316.2080402@trash.net> <4829B177.9000501@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist , Netfilter Core Team To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:46315 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751625AbYENQ2j (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 12:28:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Tuesday 2008-05-13 17:19, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> Fact is there has been going a lot of work into keeping it in git-style >>> shape. It's alright if you do not trust it, but then >>> again, it would be a waste to run with a crippled-metadata repo >>> or to do the conversion again. >> True, but as a matter of principle, I can't use an untrusted repository. >> >> And anyways, I also don't see anything wrong with simply starting with >> a clean history by only importing the latest version, In that case I'd >> have no problem using your fixed-up repository as historical reference. >> > I think this idea came up back in February already (starting from a > new slate), I am fine with that. > > Though, what's wrong with stitching the first version of the > new repository to the last version of the old one? That would work, but Yasuyuki already provided me with the information for properly tagging the tree, so I'll keep the current iptables repository. Thanks anyway.