Re: [boost] Git Modularization Ready for Review

Subject: Re: [boost] Git Modularization Ready for Review
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-18 02:57:51

On 18.05.2013 00:49, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> 2013/5/17 Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]>
>
>> On 14.05.2013 19:13, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
>>
>>> 2013/5/13 Jürgen Hunold <jhunold_at_gmx.eu>
>>>
>>>   Hi Dave,
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, 4. May 2013 12:08:22 Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> After substantial work, including massive changes by me and Daniel
>>>>> Pfeifer to KDE's svn->Git conversion tool, we have captured every Boost
>>>>> SVN commit in a Git repository.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the work. Having done CVS -> svn myself, I really appreciate
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>>   You can view the results at
>>>>>
>>>>>       http://github.com/boostorg
>>>>>       http://bitbucket.org/boostorg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have some questions concerning the Boost.Build conversion.
>>>>
>>>> The repository at
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/boostorg/**build <https://github.com/boostorg/build>
>>>>
>>>> contains a "buildv2" directory containing the Boost.Build .jam files and
>>>> "jamsrc" directory containing the c sources.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It seems the path seperators got lost. I think I fixed that problem, the
>>> conversion is currently rerunning.
>>>
>>
>> It looks better now, but the root of the repo has 'build', which has 'v2',
>> which has actual content. Can we actually have content of 'v2' at the top
>> level?
>>
>
> The current layout reflects what is in subversion. Both 'build' and 'jam'
> from the directory 'tools' are placed in the repository 'build'.
> 'jam' has been deleted somewhere in the history, so only 'build' remains.
>
> If we simply use 'tools/build/v2' as the top level of the repository
> 'build', where shall we place the parts of Boost.Build's history that does
> not match that path?

I would be fine with /dev/null, to be honest, unless Rene and Steven have any
concerns. That is part of the history that is either not used at all, or has been
rewritten over and over, so it won't be much useful in future.

- Volodya