On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> 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. > It has "no problems"? Where above you stated "this is exactly what you can't get with filter-branch" in reference to keeping our packages' relevant history. That sounds like a problem to me, in our current context. But filter-branch is not what I was talking about. I was talking about _not_ using filter-branch, and instead doing something that does keep history. > > 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.) > Okay, then let's purge the history of irrelevant files, but keep the history of relevant files even if they weren't in the "right" directory. If the monolithic repo is just a host for a bunch of separate projects, shouldn't it be possible to tease out their more-or-less separate histories? --Carl
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev