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

Subject: Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-23 09:47:37

on Thu May 23 2013, Daniel James <daniel-AT-calamity.org.uk> wrote:

> 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.

If that were going to be acceptable to the community, presumably
everyone would have been happy with the original plan to graft an
accurate SVN history when people want to refer to it, no?  Please don't
tell me that the last several months of work were wasted!

> 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.

It would be simpler to just replace the one generated by the conversion
process with the one they're using,, IMO.

-- 
Dave Abrahams