Re: Update on the branch surgery

[Eric S. R. <es...@th...>]

sfeam <sf...@us...>:
> > Hm. That's not what I see.
> > 
> > reposurgeon% [demo/gnuplot.rot] list
> >   1009 1998-04-15T19:16:47Z  :1008 *** empty log message ***
> >   1370 1998-04-22T13:40:59Z  :1369 Import of beta 344.
> >  18500 2005-01-07T23:21:02Z :18499 Revise gif animation code to comply with
> 
> [shrug]  In CVS view on SourceForge that revision "Revise gif animation code ..."
> has timestamp 
>     Sat Jan 7 23:21:02 2006 UTC (11 years, 9 months ago) by sfeam 
> 
>  http://gnuplot.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/gnuplot/gnuplot/demo/gnuplot.rot?revision=1.2&view=markup  
> 
> Nothing before that all the way to 1998.

That's weird.  gitk says 2005, too.  I'll look into this further. 

It doesn't make any difference to the present mess, though; both dates are
too late at the 2005/2006 commit is on the wrong branch.

The alternatives remain as follows:

If it were my call, I'd cut our losses - just drop the 3.7.x and 4.0
branches entirely.  That would leave the repo in a very clean state where
we have confidence that what is there matches its actual development
history quite closely.

The second option would be to leave the mess as it is.  I dislike this plan
for one major reason: We know the 3.7.x branch is corrupt - its 3.7.1 state
does not match the archived tarball.  

The third option is the heroic, possibly overinvested one. I could insert
a synthetic commit between the master-branch root of 4.0 and the rest
replicating the X change to gnuplot.rot, with a change comment explaining
the mess.  Then we could try to rectify the 3.7.x branch.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.