Eliot, If we remove the meta data from the FileTree repo, then it will be necessary to use the `adopt` command to restore the proper version history before interchanging copying to an mcz repo or trying to merge with an mcz package ...
`adopt` is not an ideal solution, which is exactly why I've (stubbornly) maintained the monticello meta data ... My statement about "as the community begins to use git-based repos as their primary repository" includes a broad definition of community, in my mind:) Cross-platform package portability has always been one of my primary concerns and I do share your concern that it's a big step to remove the monticello meta data from FileTree (again it's why I haven't done so yet) ... So far this is a bridge that doesn't need to be crossed, but when it becomes time to cross it, there might be other options that can be applied (perhaps an ancestry can be synthesized from the git meta data?) Dale On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dale, > > On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Dale Henrichs < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 7:51 AM, kilon alios <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> So far all I knew that using git for binary files was a no go, doable >> but not recommended. Thus I found strange that filetree uses binary files. >> >> > Well the files are text files, but because the text represents structured > data, the line-based auto-merge used by git is not correct ... > > The monticello version files have been included in FileTree to make it > possible to move the packages seamlessly between Filetree-based > repositories and mcz based repositories ... without that meta data, once > you move a package to FileTree it could not be moved back into an mcz > repository without losing all of the package history. > > When I was first introducing FileTree, I thought it was important that > folks be able to test out the git waters without making an "irreversible > commitment to git." Even today I find myself needing to move packages back > and forth between git and mcz repositories, so Thierry's merge-tools has > made it possible for me to have my cake and eat it too. > > I have been threatening to remove the monticello meta data from FileTree > (or at least make it optional), but I just haven't had the time or > motivation to do so ... again Thierry's merge-tool means that I never have > to deal with a manual merge of the version file, so for me I never have to > think about it ... > > As the tool sets for supporting git improve and as the community begins to > use git-based repos as their primary repository, it will make sense to > remove the monticello meta data from FileTree ... > > > Will that mean that packages will still be able to be interchanged with > Monticello? If yes, will that mean that packages will still be able to > be merged with Monticello? > > Dale > >
