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

30 May 2013


      on Thu May 23 2013, Daniel James  wrote:
...
On 23 May 2013 14:47, Dave Abrahams  wrote:
...
on Thu May 23 2013, Daniel James  wrote:
...
...
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!
What's acceptable to one person is quite different to what's
acceptable to another.
No kidding!
...
It should ultimately be up to the maintainers of individual
modules.
If anyone expects the Boost master repository to contain accurate
submodule references through history, maintainers must not be allowed to
delete old branches or rewrite old history.
...
Also, you would still have an accurate history in the historical
module(s). Which was the point, it was an attempt at a compromise
between two conflicting desires (to have an accurate history, and to
have a repository with a different directory layout).
As I've said before, Git *cannot* represent exactly what SVN
represents.  If you want an accurate history, use SVN to get it.  The
best we can do with Git is to approximate actual history.
...
...
...
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.
I thought that would mess up the history of the meta-module, as it
will refer to changesets generated by the svn to git conversion.
It would, you're right.

-- 
Dave Abrahams