9 hours ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> I was going to comment on the same thing. While a naive use of "git
> filter-branch" might not retain the history, it should be entirely
> possible to do something a little more intelligent and keep that
> history.
Just to be clear, this is exactly what you can't get with
filter-branch.
> Essentially each of the new repositories could keep the entire
> history of the original repository, followed by a massive
> move/rename, then moving forward with an individual package.
This can work, but it is unrelated to filter-branch: it's basically
starting each package repository from a clone of the monolithic repo,
then move & shuffle things around.
This seems wrong to me in all kinds of ways -- but if someone wants to
do this with *their* package (ie, not a package that I need to deal
with), then it's certainly an option.
(That's one of the big appeals of moving to packages for me: some code
moves to packages which I can let myself Not Care About™. Knock
youself out with tabs, spaces at ends of lines, braces in code, two
spaces between bindings and values in `let's, and make sure that no
file ends with a newline...)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
