On Oct 25, 7:09 pm, dormando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well... I'm trying to think of the best way to do the merge right now. I tried that a few nights ago... it's not that clean. > It's time to pull the binary tree into the "canonical" repo and start > pushing changes/tags/releases there, but do we fix up the tree first? > > Dustin, if you have a preferred list of author contacts and wouldn't mind > me poking you for some hints, could you please send it over? I'll give a > shot at rewriting the tree. The easiest way is to probably redo the svn import with an authorfile and replay all of the branch changes with format-patch/am. filter-branch's most obvious use case ends up being rather hard. > Another option is ignoring it for now... I make a 'binary' branch based > off of everyone's latest changes, push that, tag it as 1.3.1 and ship. > Then rewrite the tree for 1.3.2? :/ Not sure how I feel about that, since > it could make it harder for people to hop on and help fix bugs in the > tree. Rebase is actually really smart about major tree rewrites, of course, it gets harder with merges and *large* rewrites. There's a lot of other stuff to do, of course. It'd also be good to have standards on commits before bringing them into trees. I've been a little bad about that
