Hi... Was busy at work and with a big move in career in life, details about that later ;).
Seems that there is no real interest in Git support, hence I am closing this discussion with a main conclusion of -1 :D. On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Disappointing. We move stuff in and out of trunk all the time. > > I think I need to elaborate a bit more in depth about the possibilities. > > There is no straight 'you cannot move with history' because this heavily > depends on the situations. > > a.) you CAN retain history if you e.g. have a sandbox-repo which is a > clone of the official upstream repo. > > If you just add new features in a new branch, then the tree-ish (the > diff-objects forming a tree) has a parent with a root node sha1 of the > upstream repository. Thus GIT can apply any merge from your sandbox repo to > the canonical main repo and perfectly retain history. This will of course > only work if the work you like to merge is rooted in the upstream repo > somehow. It is NOT possible to just git-merge a nice feature from e.g. > openwebbeans.git into openejb.git (or the other way around), because those > 2 repos don't have a common ancestor! > > > b.) GIT provides a porcelain (the little hardcore pieces which form the > foundation layer for all the polished things on top) which allows to import > with history. git porcelains are certainly able to modify the history, so I > think it could work somehow. I'm not sure if git-fetch from such a repo > into a new branch and then merging it will success, but it might be worth a > try. > > > After a bit searching I saw that Linus did something already: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/5126/ > > Good read also ;) > > LieGrue, > strub > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: David Blevins <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: > > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 8:57 PM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - OpenEJB to use Git (Fwd: [PROPOSAL] Wicket to > use Git@ASF) > > > > > > On Nov 27, 2011, at 4:35 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > >> * tags and branches are always repository-global! It's not possible to > > just tag a single subdirectory as you can do in SVN. You really need to > know > > upfront how you will going to release your stuff later (all the > modularisation > > thingy), because that's exactly the way you need to separate your > > repositories. > >> > >> * git does not support a real sparse checkout handling and > git-submodules > > handling still sucks. > >> > >> * you cannot move a directory with all his history from one git repo to > > another one (e.g. sandbox to proper) if they don't have a common tree-ish > > ancestor. > > > > Disappointing. We move stuff in and out of trunk all the time. And as > you > > point out on the Maven list, having a ton of tiny repos, some active > some not, > > is really frustrating. Reorganizing has serious consequences -- dead > repos, > > lost history, etc. > > > > The "one big ASF repo" that SVN offers is really elegant. Git's > > pension to force you to split things up into tiny islands between which > code > > cannot flow with history seems to eat away at some of the advantages Git > brings. > > > > Are there plans in the Git roadmap to improve this? > > > > Why are people not holding their feet to the fire and making them fix > such basic > > things? > > > > > > -David > > > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour ---- "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" - Albert Einstein
