Re: gitweb wishlist

From: Thomas Glanzmann <sithglan@stud.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: May 24, 2005, 19:16 UTC
Message-ID: <20050524191618.GA25606@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0505241146500.2307@ppc970.osdl.org>

Hello,

Show 5 quoted lines

> Note that one advantage of the unconverted output is that while it's
> unreadable and not very helpful, it _is_ the raw output from CVS. Again,
> that means that everybody will convert the same CVS archive into exactly
> the same git tree, and that means (among other things) that you can then
> immediately merge between the trees.

I see your point. But it depends on the usage scenario. For me for example I would like to vendortrack a few CVS repositories. And I use it only to maintain a few patches (branches and the merging facilities of git come handy in here), not in a distributed environment were I need that much reproducability. So having the option to use them is fine for me and when I need reproducability than I simple don't. When I think about this scenario ... it comes in my mind that it maybe would be helpful to have a helper applications like git-merge-base which looks at the treeids and not the commit ids to find the merge base, or is that just bullshit?

	Thomas