Re: please check BK&MTN to GIT conversion dry-run repository

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

On 16-10-2008 11:39, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 10:31 +0200, Jan Lübbe wrote:
>> Oh, this is new to me :/ When i talked about importing BK history with
>> Holger he didn't seem to have any doubts.
>
> I thought I'd made the idea of using a graft for this clear but
> obviously not :(.
>
>> > From what i just read about grafts, it will replace the parent
>> information for the specified commit. So we could still replace the
>> current BK import with the correct one.
>>
>> Grafts are local only though.
>
> They won't get passed through a git clone? I guess that isn't a problem
> as long as we do this on the master repository and document it.
>
>>>> and
>>>> still allows to find ot where the files come from. If someone figures
>>>> out how to do a better conversion, we can still rebase, it that is
>>>> desired.
>>> No, we don't want to ever rebase. I'd much prefer we had a graft for
>>> that point in time so we can just replace the history as and when we
>>> come up with a better version.
>> We could import BK again (correctly) into a separate branch and then
>> document how to graft it to instead of the current stuff.
>
> It is now too late to rebuild the tree without the BKCVS information?
> I'd prefer not to have the wrong information hanging around if at all
> possible.

Let's just leave it as it is. It currently gives up a much better 
history than we had in mtn and peope will stop claiming I'm responsible 
for all their bugs when their bisect turns up the bk import.
The downside is that I can't claim that I wrote OE in one day anymore ;)

regards,

Koen