Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> The arguments that were put forward for switching to git all had to do
>> with managing patches against HEAD. AFAIK hardly anyone but the core
>> committers deals with back-patching at all, and so a structure like this
>> isn't going to affect anyone else --- you'd just ignore the back-branch
>> directory subtrees in your checkout.
>
> If we're going to do that let's just keep using CVS. I would consider
> a repository organized that way to be completely unusable; without
> doing anything the system we have now is better than that.
>
The only reason Tom sees a single line history is because he uses an
addon tool for CVS called cvs2cl: see <http://www.red-bean.com/cvs2cl/>.
It's not part of CVS, and I'm not sure how many others use it. I sure
don't. It's written in Perl, and we have one or two tolerably competent
Perl programmers around, so maybe we could produce a git equivalent?
cheers
andrew