Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-23 04:12:48

On 23 May 2013 06:28, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Rewriting _published_ history is most strongly discouraged by the Git
> people, for several good reasons. *If* there is to be any
> rearrangement, it should happen before the switchover, so it doesn't
> bork people who are doing work based on the history originally
> published.

Maybe that could be avoided by having two repositories: the historical
repo, which would retain perfect history, and the working repo, which
would have the desired layout. The working repo could be created after
the conversion, and have enough history to be useful for general
development. The meta project could switch its reference over once the
new repository has been set up. Would also prevent any extra delay to
deal with this.

Since the odeint developers want to use their git repository
( rather than the one
created by the conversion, that distinction might be required there

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at