On Jul 22, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Ken Raeburn wrote:
>
> And if we're publishing (or planning to publish) git repositories  
> with development work based on the Emacs one?  Rebasing is strongly  
> discouraged for public repositories.

Indeed.  I also don't see how tags (e.g. versions) are supposed to  
work or be recreated if you just rebase several months worth of  
changes as if they happened much later.

I would think that rebasing also gets very complicated if changes are  
interleaved so that patches don't apply cleanly on top of a single  
revision.

 >give it existing revisions as starting points and mirror only newer  
stuff on top of the
 >old mirror... aside from needing to figure out what the mirroring  
scripts are keeping >track of and adjust that data, it seems like  
basically the same work as you're >suggesting anyone using git  
downstream should do for themselves.

Exactly.

> On the other hand, if the mirror ever needed reconstructing from  
> scratch, it might not be easily reproducible.)

I think that's unlikely - rather one would go back to a backup in the  
case of corruption.