Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Near future.. How do we deal with git-native libraries?
From: Ahmed Charles (acharles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-07 01:10:26
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:35:46 +0000
> From: daniel_at_[hidden]
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Near future.. How do we deal with git-native libraries?
> On 4 December 2013 03:48, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > I think I understand that.. I can't "remove" the existing history (by
> > replacing the repo with my other one) because the history is being used by
> > tags. And hence the option you are proposing is to merge the two repos
> > together and hiding away the SVN imported one. Which seems like a
> > reasonable option for Predef since it doesn't have a long git history (but
> > slightly longer and more detailed than the svn history).
> Yes, that's what I was saying.
> >> branches. Afterwards the super-repo will need to be updated
> >> accordingly. Maybe someone has a better idea?
> >> # Create clone containing both repos:
> >> git clone git_at_[hidden]:boostorg/predef.git
> >> cd predef
> >> git remote add grafik git_at_[hidden]:grafikrobot/boost-predef.git
> >> git fetch grafik
> >> # Save old branches, so old checkouts of the main module
> >> # will still work:
> >> git tag svn-develop origin/develop
> >> git tag svn-master origin/master
> >> git push --tags
> >> # Replace master, keeping some files from the old repo:
> >> # (-B overwrite the local branch)
> >> git checkout grafik/master -B master
> >> git checkout svn-master -- .gitattributes index.html
> >> git commit -m "Add files required for boost"
> >> git push --force origin master
> >> # Replace develop with master as well,
> >> # as grafik/predef doesn't have a develop branch
> >> git checkout -b develop
> >> git push --force origin develop
> > I must confess I don't understand the git commands.. But I do understand
> > your comments of them. Am I to assume you've mostly tried them? I ask
> > because I'm ok blindly following them once. But will likely fall flat on my
> > face if something goes wrong :-)
> I just gave it another go, and it seems fine. If you want I'll do it for you.
Did this ever happen?
Note, I'd think that merging the two histories together would result in a more seamless transition from the svn history to the git history rather than having two disjoint histories.