>> It would make sense to split out the web and the vimfiles into two
>> separate repos. However, is that really necessary?
> What disadvantages do you see? I am pretty sure that most of vim-latex

None aside from the grunt work. My comment was sort of an "in the 
meanwhile, symlinks with pathogen should work."

> The only potential issue I see is that after the splitting of the
> repository, they will have different commit ids than the original
> repository had. Since the repository is not published that long, I tend
> to think that this is not important.

That probably won't be much of an issue... Aside from the fact that it 
will create a new head when anyone pulls down the new repo (hopefully 
that wouldn't confuse any automated package managers, like Arch Linux's 
yaourt (there is already a vim-latex-git on AUR)).

Alternatively, you could keep the htdocs in the history. Clone the 
current repo into two, and then (within each clone) move the files to 
their desired locations and commit the changes. Of course, you probably 
don't need to maintain the changelog within the new "vim-latex-htdocs" 
repo, and so that one could be split out regardless.


Ted Pavlic <t...@tedpavlic.com>

The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
Vim-latex-devel mailing list

Reply via email to