On 8/28/07, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Sam Vilain <sam@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > In that case, I think that an annotated tag would be a better > > conversion. It just really needs a good test case drawn up, and > > then be implemented. For those 0.01% of tags that do change from > > the version they were copied from, they must remain as branches. > > "remain"? Things don't need to stay the same. Most (but not > necessarily all) Subversion tags presumably start out as "tags", top > level trunk copies, and then "just a final fix" gets in at some point > of time. Of course, one can also "tag" off branches, or of > subdirectories or whatever in Subversion. Although this is a good argument *for* branches, it's not a good argument *against* tags. The svn tag would be converted to a git annotated tag at 'first commit' time, and if there are subsequent commits to the svn tag directory (as opposed to the usually corresponding branch directory) "tags/tagname" branch would be created in git. -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta - 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
