Putting a versioned-but-not-via-source control project in source control?

That's a reasonable approach. Some source control systems (TFS, for example) will silently ignore attempts to check in a file that is unchanged. This is a good thing.

If yours doesn't have this feature, I recommend doing a diff across all files and only checking in the changed ones. Otherwise, you add a great deal of noise to the file histories.

1 Also don't forget that you'll have to manually reconcile files that are added, removed and renamed between versions (again, depending on your SCM software)... – Dean Harding Mar 29 '10 at 0:40 @codeka - Good point, I'd forgotten about this... Given this, I'm not sure I can avoid the process of explicitly finding out my adds and removes between versions (however I choose to do it). Agree? – Emilio Mar 29 '10 at 1:06 But at least you only have to do it on a file-by-file basis, rather than having to actually look inside files for diffs.

Also, if you use something like TortoiseSVN, it'll make it easy to spot files that have been added (though you won't know about files that have been deleted). – Dean Harding Mar 29 '10 at 1:13 @codeka - I am indeed using Tortoise. The cat's out of the bag now, it's SVN.

:) – Emilio Mar 29 '10 at 3:26 1 You could also diff the list of files in each version to solve the added-removed problem. You could automate this whole process quite easily. – mfperzel Mar 29 '10 at 16:09.

If this is more or less ironed out code and it's not part of a release history of products that are in maintenance, there might be little value in maintaining the history. Zip up the directories somewhere (just in case) and place the most recent version in source control. There may be no real need to do a bunch of work to create a history that has little or no value.

As an example, when moving to a new revision control system many organizations might just start the new system with the head of the existing system (or maybe a set of branches) and have to go back to the legacy system for any history beyond the switchover date.

Michael - The value of the history is admittedly low, but maintaining it satisfies my need for some minimal degree of order. If this was a work project vs a personal one and the value of the history was low, I wouldn't do. – Emilio Mar 29 '10 at 0:43 @Emil: He's right that not every version is essential.

The released versions are, but the rest are optional. – Steven Sudit Mar 29 '10 at 2:24 @Emilio: of course only you can can determine the value of the history - I was just suggesting that it be taken into consideration because I think in a lot of cases someone might just have a quick reaction that you've gotta put the history in there since it's available in some form. Also, don't forget if you have an archive of the original directories you have a history, just one that's painful to access.

But if you only need to access it once in a blue moon, that might be OK. – Michael Burr Mar 29 '10 at 2:35 good points all, agree. – Emilio Mar 29 '10 at 3:25.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.