Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Near future.. How do we deal with git-native libraries?
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-03 08:39:00
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Daniel James <daniel_at_[hidden]>
> > On 2 December 2013 08:21, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > >> Or is it possible/desirable to use the
> > >> existing repo that's part of my user account?
> > >>
> > >
> > > We need to have a discussion of this, but IIUC we could create the
> > boostorg
> > > repo for a new library by forking a github library such as yours. I
> > > haven't given any thought to the pros and cons of that.
> > This has been discussed in the past. The existing repo will need to
> > remain as the super module refers to the hash values of its commits.
> > The suggested fix was to combine the two repos, since a git repo can
> > contain two separate trees. The old branches will need to be kept
> > alive by tagging them.
> > I'd rather have kept the two separate by using a different name for
> > the converted repo (e.g. svn-predef), but no one agreed with me.
> Since it seems that we need to BoostOrg repo.. My preference would be to
> slam the BoostOrg one with my canonical repo and only keep the BoostOrg
> repo around. Since the canonical one has more, and more accurate, history
> than the BoostOrg one. But I don't know what the ramifications of such a
> move are.
I'm having trouble understanding this discussion because of the imprecise
By "BoostOrg repo" do you mean the GitHub boostorg repo?
What do you mean by "slam"? "fork into"?
Until exact steps are proposed, it is hard to know how history will be