Forum Posts

I will probably not be rewriting history for this. I expect the same thing will happen when the forked off lwp, rpc2 and rvm libraries, which are currently independent repositories, are merged back ... [More] into the main source tree which I expect to happen at some future date. There is a fundamental issue with the way additions/deletions are counted. Yes, thousands of lines of code were "removed" in that branch of the code. But they were indirectly re-added when the branch was merged back because the code survived in the (in this case main-line) branch. [Less]

Actually buggy usage of CVS, the early CVS history was badly mangled as a result of renaming and hand-editing files in the repository. The git tree was created by a parsecvs combined with a lot of ... [More] cleaning up of these types of bad branches. I'll see if I can rewrite history to make a little more sense. On the other hand, the history is technically correct. the developer checked out the repository removed everything he didn't want to work on and committed the result to his own branch. Then worked on the branch for a while and finally merged his changes back into the main tree, recreating the files that were "lost" on his branch. [Less]