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: 2013-05-30 18:27:47

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

> 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. 

No kidding!

> It should ultimately be up to the maintainers of individual
> modules. 

If anyone expects the Boost master repository to contain accurate
submodule references through history, maintainers must not be allowed to
delete old branches or rewrite old history.

> 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).

As I've said before, Git *cannot* represent exactly what SVN
represents.  If you want an accurate history, use SVN to get it.  The
best we can do with Git is to approximate actual history.

>>> 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.
>
> 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.

It would, you're right.

-- 
Dave Abrahams