1. Need to remember to request this
We could rename the branch ourselves if necessary, but probably they'd need to do it for us so it's the default branch when cloning.
4. Probably/Maybe? I'm not sure how robust git+svn clone is here. Verification/validation before the transition is complete would be necessary.
Right now, I'm pretty sure the branches don't merge cleanly, so it would be very annoying if this made git branches not merge cleanly. If fixing it in SVN first will make git-svn and git happy later, we should do that. I'd really love to close the 1.3 branch prior to switching... it's one less branch we'd have to deal with. I'd also like to get this transition done prior to releasing 1.6.0, so we don't add another branch in the chain to deal with.
5. Not sure I follow this one. SVN branches will appear as git branches, and SVN tags as git tags. Verification/validation again.
Right, but these are the long-running old versions branches we've discussed. This is related to number 4. The main point being that eventually, all the last tags in each series should merge forward cleanly. What we don't want to do is tag them without making them merge cleanly first... that would be VERY frustrating when doing bugfixes in older versions.
6. Should pre-date 5
Number 5 would create some more... unless you're including branch cleanup as part of the tagging process, then we're thinking similarly.