Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up

on Thu May 23 2013, Daniel James wrote:

On 23 May 2013 06:28, Dave Abrahams wrote:

...

Rewriting _published_ history is most strongly discouraged by the Git people, for several good reasons. *If* there is to be any rearrangement, it should happen before the switchover, so it doesn't bork people who are doing work based on the history originally published.

Maybe that could be avoided by having two repositories: the historical repo, which would retain perfect history, and the working repo, which would have the desired layout. The working repo could be created after the conversion, and have enough history to be useful for general development. The meta project could switch its reference over once the new repository has been set up. Would also prevent any extra delay to deal with this.

If that were going to be acceptable to the community, presumably everyone would have been happy with the original plan to graft an accurate SVN history when people want to refer to it, no? Please don't tell me that the last several months of work were wasted!

Since the odeint developers want to use their git repository (https://github.com/headmyshoulder/odeint-v2) rather than the one created by the conversion, that distinction might be required there anyway.

It would be simpler to just replace the one generated by the conversion process with the one they're using,, IMO. -- Dave Abrahams