From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryan Anderson Subject: Re: I want to release a "git-1.0" Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 18:19:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20050530221922.GC21076@mythryan2.michonline.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 31 00:18:10 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DcsZP-0005dK-HF for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 31 May 2005 00:17:15 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261785AbVE3WTw (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 May 2005 18:19:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261786AbVE3WTw (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 May 2005 18:19:52 -0400 Received: from mail.autoweb.net ([198.172.237.26]:43720 "EHLO mail.autoweb.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261785AbVE3WTZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 May 2005 18:19:25 -0400 Received: from pcp01184054pcs.strl301.mi.comcast.net ([68.60.186.73] helo=michonline.com) by mail.autoweb.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DcsbT-00059r-EU; Mon, 30 May 2005 18:19:23 -0400 Received: from mythical ([10.254.251.11] ident=Debian-exim) by michonline.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Dcsd7-0005BV-00; Mon, 30 May 2005 18:21:05 -0400 Received: from ryan by mythical with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DcsbS-0004Fh-Q5; Mon, 30 May 2005 18:19:22 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 01:00:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I think I'll move the "cvs2git" script thing to git proper before the 1.0 > release (again, in order to have the tutorial able to show what to do if > you already have an existing CVS tree), what else? Umm, why do you maintain two seperate "git" related trees? Why not merge all of git-tools in, in a tools/ subdirectory? I've been meaning to ask the same question about "gitweb" for that matter. The distributions that want seperate packages for dependency reasons can handle that easily inside one tree, anyway, I believe. I'd guess part of this is a holdover from the fact that you needed an independent tree for BitKeeper, but does it still make sense? -- Ryan Anderson sometimes Pug Majere