Björn Pettersson A writes:
>> Ok, in that case I would expect the resulting history to look like
>> this:
>>
>> UL4->UC2->UL3->UL2->UL1->UL0->UC1 <- monorepo/master
>> | \
>> \ `---.
>> `
Björn Pettersson A writes:
> In llvm (split) we have:
>
> UL4->UL3->UL2->UL1->UL0
>\
> ...->DL2->DL1
>
> In clang (split) we have:
>
> UC4->UC3->UC2->UC1->UC0
>\
> ...->DC2->DC1
>
>
> DL1 is a commit that updates the clang submodule to
Björn Pettersson A writes:
> In the new monorepo UC1 may or may not be a parent to UL1.
> We could actually have something like this:
>
> UL4->UC2->UL3->UL2->UL1->UL0->UC1
>
> Our DL1 commit should preferably have UL1 as parent after
> conversion
>
> UL4->UC2->UL3->UL2->UL1->UL0->UC1
>
He all,
I've updated the downstream fork zipping tool that I posted about last
November [1]. It is much improved in every way. The most important
enhancements are:
- Does a better job of simplifying history
- Handles nested submodules
- Will put non-submodule-update content in a subdirectory
