Re: git copies of cvs modules available

[Thomas Adam <thomas.adam22%gmail.com@localhost>]

2009/11/13 Curt Sampson <cjs%netbsd.org@localhost>:
> On 2009-11-13 07:42 +0000 (Fri), Thomas Adam wrote:
>> The history is really important.
>
> When you make statements like this, you start to sound like a git fanboy
> rather than someone trying to make a rational comparison. (I presume you
> really are the latter, and are just letting your tone slip a bit.)

All I meant was, without it, I won't be able to see anything that's
gone on in the source tree.  If I wanted to see why a given Makefile
isn't working, I can take a look and see when/how it was changed.
With a shallow clone you can't do this, and at a wider-level, the
history of everything being such an integral part of how git works;
even with all that information, the *size* of the repository is still
tiny in comparison.  I appreciate the age-old adage of "disk space is
cheap" springs to mind, but alas, it's not cheap for everyone.

There's no "tone" at all.

> Well, we'll see. Nothing's been accepted into git yet, and there are no
> current plans to have this out for any particular release, as far as I
> can tell. We've had patches floating around to do something like this
> for at least a year, but that nothing has been acceptable to date seems
> to indicate that this is not a trivial problem to solve.

Sure -- but I like the mirror, and hope it's maintained.  I can/will
even help out in this regard if necessary.

-- Thomas Adam