Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Modularizing Boost (modularization)
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-18 12:54:12
Niall Douglas wrote:
> I would *personally* prefer to see the moving around of files and
> associated fixups done in the SVN repo before moving to git, because
> unlike svn once git's history is written, it is forever unchangeable.
> Also, moving files between git submodules after the git move will
> lose history.
To be honest I think the history is not lost, it's just discontinuous.
Especially if the commit in the source repo that deletes the file
refers to the target repo and vice versa, you can still trace back
what happened to a file all the way to its first creation. Of course,
continuous history is still more convenient than discontinous history.
I also think Steve is right that a post-switch context where people
panic about git is not ideal for decoupling libraries -- although I
don't have any strong intuitions of my own about how bad that panic
I can also relate to this:
> But in the end, so long as the git output can compile, I don't care
> that strongly.
>> Thanks, and thanks for the appreciation,
> What you're doing will always be underappreciated. I've done your job
> before on a mature codebase, and it was never ending political
> problems rather than technical problems. I feel for you, for sure.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk