Hi,
Quoting "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> I think the same. If git is not able to maintain our project history
> then it is not mature enough to be considered as our official VCS.
As Aidan pointed out, the question is not *if* git can represent it.
It's rather *how*. Especially WRT changes of historical information in
the CVS repository underneath.
Heikki is considered about having to merge WIP branches in case the
(CVS and git repository) history changes, so he'd like to maintain the
old history as well as the changed one. OTOH Robert doesn't want to
fiddle with multiple histories and expects to have just exactly one
history. Obviously one can't have both. Either one has to rebase/merge
his changes onto the new history, or continue with multiple histories.
Being a monotone fan, I have to admit that git definitely provides the
most options on *how* to handle these cases, see Aidan's mail upthread.
Knowing most of the corruptions of CVS in use in the wild (by fiddling
with cvs_import for monotone) I now consider git (and svn, hg, bzr,
mtn..) to be more mature than CVS, certainly much more consistent. So
if maturity (not age) is your major concern, I'd rather flee from CVS
now than tomorrow.
Regards
Markus Wanner
