Subject: Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-24 02:49:14
On 23 May 2013 14:47, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> on Thu May 23 2013, Daniel James <daniel-AT-calamity.org.uk> wrote:
>> 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!
What's acceptable to one person is quite different to what's
acceptable to another. It should ultimately be up to the maintainers
of individual modules. Also, you would still have an accurate history
in the historical module(s). Which was the point, it was an attempt at
a compromise between two conflicting desires (to have an accurate
history, and to have a repository with a different directory layout).
>> 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
> It would be simpler to just replace the one generated by the conversion
> process with the one they're using,, IMO.
I thought that would mess up the history of the meta-module, as it
will refer to changesets generated by the svn to git conversion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk