On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> Just now, Carl Eastlund wrote: > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > > > > A few minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > "Relevant history" is vague. The thing that you can't do with > filter-branch is keep the complete history if you remove files from > the history -- the files that are gone go with their history. > > > > 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. > > Like I said: what you're suggesting means keeping the full monolithic > history of developement in the main repo, including all of the > irrelevant files (which will be removed in the tip, but included in > the repo). > > > > 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? > > (*sigh*; please read the other email, where I went over this > thoroughly.) > I just went over all your emails on this topic, and I can't find a single one where you addressed this specific proposal at all. I don't know which one of us is misunderstanding another on this point. --Carl
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev