Re: [boost] Not Losing history (Was: [git] Boost.Build location_

Subject: Re: [boost] Not Losing history (Was: [git] Boost.Build location_
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-28 12:37:18

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> on Fri Dec 28 2012, Tim Blechmann <tim-AT-klingt.org> wrote:
>
>>...
>> of course, a modularized history is not `reality' and we won't be able
>> to bisect issues for example or checkout specific tags ...
>>
>> iac, i'd rather have a `modularized past', knowing where certain code
>> comes from and why it is there than a fully working `past' (if this is
>> required, one can always go to the archive) ...
>
> As noted earlier, we can create a "best effort" modularized past.
> However, there are some caveats.  For example, some files have probably
> been moved around in ways that could cause that history to appear to
> lose the file in any given modularized repo, while it shows up in some
> other modularized repo.

Speaking as a developer, the most common everyday use I (and probably
others) make of history is to look at the log for a library (or
subset) and then look at a particular changeset. IIUC, a "best effort"
modularized past would work fine for that use, except for the rare
case where a file moved between libraries. It is very rare for me to
want to switch all of a Boost working copy back to some past tag or
revision.  So as long as all the known caveats are documented, I'd
prefer "best effort" modularized history, at least as I currently
understand it.

--Beman