Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up

Subject: Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up
From: Jürgen Hunold (jhunold_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-23 04:30:04

Hi Daniel,

> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2013 um 10:12 Uhr
> Von: "Daniel James" <daniel_at_[hidden]>
> An: boost_at_[hidden]
> Betreff: Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up
>
> 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
> (https://github.com/headmyshoulder/odeint-v2) rather than the one
> created by the conversion, that distinction might be required there
> anyway.

Well, odeint is a rather new library. And for those it makes sense to
just add the existing repository as a submodule on acceptance.
AFAIK the odeint maintainers are just waiting for this to be possible.

Yours,

Jürgen
--
* Dipl.-Math. Jürgen Hunold  ! juergen.hunold_at_gmx.eu
* voice: 0049 4257 300       ! Fährstraße 1
* fax  : [phone]       ! 31609 Balge/Sebbenhausen
* mobil: 0049 178 186 1566   ! Germany