From: Thomas Glanzmann Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 19:16:18 GMT Subject: Re: gitweb wishlist Message-ID: <20050524191618.GA25606@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> In-Reply-To: Hello, > 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