Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>: > A much more compelling argument to me would be that you are doing some > bidirectional magic between git and svn, and you want to make make sure > that an svn->git->svn translation will result in the exact same bytes. > Then the argument is still "because SVN has it", but at least it is "and > we interoperate with it" and not simply chasing a cool but useless > feature. Er, well, that *is* in fact the exact reason I want it. I didn't put it exactly that way because I didn't expect anyone here to particularly care about round-tripping like that. But remember that I do a lot of stuff with repo surgery and conversion tools. As a matter of fact (and this list is the first to hear about it) I'm working on code right now that massages a git import stream into a Subversion dumpfile. Soon, unless I hit a blocker I'm not expecting, I'll ship it. Yes, there will be serious limitations and unavoidable metadata loss. But in every case *except timestamps* that loss is Subversion's fault for having a weak ontology. Timestamps are the one place git doesn't hold up its end. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html