Re: [boost] [git] [modular boost] Switchover schedule proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] [modular boost] Switchover schedule proposal
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-28 21:57:25

Daniel Pfeifer <daniel_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 2013/10/28 Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>:
>> Daniel Pfeifer <daniel_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> 2013/10/27 Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>:
>>>> Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> - Can I merge and delete branches in GIT without affecting the whole system
>>>>> stability (for example `conversion` library currently contains branches
>>>>> like `filesystem_V3`)
>>>>
>>>> If you're a library maintainer, yes.  The only branches that you must
>>>> maintain for system stability are "develop" and "master."  However, be
>>>> aware that some branches in the Boost super-project repository may be
>>>> referencing commits on your branches.
>>>
>>> Do we need all those branches in the super-project?
>>> If we drop everything but "develop", "master", and the release tags
>>> from the super-project, then library maintainers could clean up their
>>> repositories without being afraid of breaking something else.
>>
>> If we just rewrite those branches to have non-standard branch paths
>> (e.g. refs/tags/old-branches/<whatever>) the history will be preserved
>> but hidden.  For example, you won't see these tags when you do a default
>> checkout.  Then anyone who wants to "re-activate" the branch can just
>> create a new branch on that commit using a standard path, or rename the
>> ref.
>>
>> I think this is probably the right way to go: rewrite all branches but
>> develop and master (are there any other branches that deserve special
>> status?) into a non-standard path.  If we can determine which tags are
>> actual release tags, we might want to rewrite all the others into
>> non-standard paths.
>
> I agree that we should rename the old branches. As a prefix, I suggest
> "svn-" instead of "old-" to make it more explicit where those branches
> come from.
>
> I disagree that branches from Subversion should become tags in Git.

Judgement call; I could live with it either way.

> I whould even turn non-release-tags from Subversion into branches.

Why?

> Here is what I would do (and I can do that, if everybody agrees).
>
> * Prefix all branches from Subversion with "svn-branches" (master and
> develop excluded) .
> * Turn non-release-tags from Subversion into branches and prefix them
> with "svn-tags".
> * Rename release tags from "release/Boost_X_XX_X" to "boostX.XX.X".
> * Remove all "svn-branches" and "svn-tags" from the superproject.

Why?

> * Allow library maintainers to drop/rename their "svn-branches" and "svn-tags".

OK.