From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: Source tree tidy Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:57:17 +0000 Message-ID: <53146E1D.7060505@citrix.com> References: <5310E152.8030407@citrix.com> <21268.27836.723674.210458@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <21268.27836.723674.210458@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Jackson Cc: Tim Deegan , Keir Fraser , Ian Campbell , Jan Beulich , Xen-devel List List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/03/14 11:51, Ian Jackson wrote: > Andrew Cooper writes ("Source tree tidy"): >> Looking through the root of the git tree, there are some files which >> appear to be remnants of legacy source code management systems, and thus >> are good candidates for deletion. >> >> >From bitkeeper: >> .bk-to-hg >> .rootkeys >> .hg-to-bk > I have no idea what these are but if we think anyone is using > bitkeeper I would want an explanation of what they are and what > implications there might be for removing them. > > But probably no-one is using bitkeeper, in which case we can remove > them. > >> >From mercurial: >> .hgsigs > Doesn't this latter contain information which hg needs if it wants to > verify a signed tag which was made with hg ? > > Ian. In theory, yes, although in practice the public half of the key used to sign them doesn't appear to be published. The signed tags cover 4.1.0-rc1 thru 4.2.0-rc4, missing the releases themselves, so are not particularly interesting to verify. ~Andrew