Subject: Re: [boost] [git] [modular boost] Switchover schedule proposal
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-30 00:19:14
Daniel Pfeifer <daniel_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 2013/10/29 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>:
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> 2013/10/29 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> About six years ago, some release tags were renamed from
>>>>> release/Version_X_XX_X to release/Boost_X_XX_X. Renaming in svn is
>>>>> performed by remove and add.
>>>> Not quite. The added file/directory also has a property that tells
>>>> where it originated from so that it is possible to track file
>>> Correct, but that does not change the point I am making: We ended up
>>> with two tags, where only one is desired.
>> Doesn't Boost2Git handle moves? I.e. the old-named tags should appear
>> deleted, shouldn't they?
> Boost2Git does not delete branches/tags. When you delete a branch in
> svn, it still exists in the history. But when you delete a branch in
> git, it is truly gone. So we decided to keep all deleted branches.
> As a post-processing, we delete all merged branches, ie. the result of
> `git branch --merged`. Copied tags do not count as merged branches.
"Move between branches" is a vacuous concept in Git-land. Therefore, it
makes sense to map both SVN branches into the same Git branch. Then the
commit that performed the move would be empty in Git, but history would
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk