A few minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> It doesn't seem wrong to me. It's an accurate representation of the
> history of the project, which is exactly what git is for retaining.
> Where does the problem come from?
The problem of filter-branch? It has no problems, it does exactly
what it is supposed to do.
> If git filter-branch doesn't maintain the history we need, it's not
> the right tool for the job.
If the drracket files are irrelevant for the swindle package then they
shouldn't be in the swindle repository -- and on the exact same token,
the development history of drracket shouldn't be there either.
(This is not new, BTW, I think that there was general concensus right
from the start of the package talk that the monolithic repo is just a
host for a bunch of separate projects.)
--
((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
