Re: [SVN-MIGRATION] Re: Proposed repository structure

FWIW, I'm against keeping CVS operational in this way; it just adds  
more work in the long run.
We should keep the original CVS repo archived somewhere as a tarball  
for interested parties, but I see no value in keeping the CVS server  
functional beyond the transition to SVN.

It also does not hurt to import those obsolete files into SVN and then  
"svn rm" them from the tree.

--Wez.

On Sep 1, 2008, at 6:07 PM, Gwynne Raskind wrote:

>>>
>>> - Obsolete projects which aren't touched anymore will NOT be  
>>> converted from CVS
>>>   Pros: Avoids clutter in SVN
>>>   Cons: CVS would have to be maintained indefinitely to preserve  
>>> the history
>> If we do that we should keep the ,v files-
>
> Agreed.