Subject: Re: [boost] [Git] Moving beyond arm waving?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-03 16:31:19
At Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:00:50 -0700,
Belcourt, K. Noel wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 1:48 PM, John Wiegley wrote:
> > Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte <mjklaim_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> I've read that a lot of project switching to (any DSVC) did that to not have
> >> to hack the conversion tools too much. But it depends on the real needs
> >> regarding the source history.
> > Part of the reason we're putting this much effort into it is that we want a
> > process which split Boost up into submodules during the migration process,
> > while preserving as much history within each separate submodule as possible.
> > There's just no tool out there that does that right now. So since we needed
> > to write a tool anyway, why not solve the whole problem.
> I haven't been following this closely so ignore if you've already discussed /
> decided this.
> I'd much prefer to leave the repo structure unchanged and migrate directly into
> git "as is". Restructure the repo into submodules after we've made the
> transition to git. It will be much easier to restructure the repo with
> everything already in git.
That's essentially exactly what John is doing. There's no tool that faithfully
does an "as is" translation of a history as complex as Boost's.
> There's two upsides, we lose no commit history and it only perturbs one aspect
> at a time (first give people chance to use same repo layout using new tool,
> followed by a restructure of the repo into submodules using the new tool). I
> worry about perturbing too many variables at once.
I worry about having too many separate perturbations.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk