- *No* acceptance has been shown. On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour ---- "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" - Albert Einstein
