Conversion to SVN

[John Baldwin]

On Saturday, October 08, 2011 12:16:59 pm Simon L. B. Nielsen wrote:
> >> I'm not really sure where you would fit doc into the current repo...
> >> head/ etc. is on the top level.
> > 
> > /doc and /www would be the obvious choices. Ed even jokingly (??) said
> 
> Well, that seems like a bit of a mess as you mainly have branches at that level...
> 
> > we should just rename /head to /src ... not sure I concur.
> 
> Considering we have stable etc. on the same level that seems like a bad thing to do...

I agree with both of these.  The layout in svn currently is src-centric and
only setup to handle src.  You would need to move the entire repo down into a
new "src" directory for it to really work, but we aren't going to do that now.
I think a separate SVN for doc+www is fine (and not near as much overhead to
manage as Ulrich fears).

Also, I think the discontinuous history idea is a compelling reason to not put
the doc/www history into source svn.  Right now svn changes move forward
continuously with time (so change N + 1 is "newer" than change N), but
importing doc+www history as changes that are subsequent to the current top of
tree would break that.  OTOH, renumbering the current tree to put the doc+www
history in the "right" place is simply not workable now.  Importing doc+www
into the current SVN is something that would have needed to be done during the
initial CVS -> SVN conversion, but that ship has sailed.

-- 
John Baldwin