On 22 November 2017 at 07:45, Adam Jackson <a...@nwnk.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 10:25 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:28:20PM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
>> > Your script splits each proto into a subdirectory, does it really make
>> > sense to
>> > do that, or should the final proto package have everything together in the
>> > root?
>>
>> please no! if you merge all repos the history will be messy. With
>> subdirectories
>> at least you get a nice git log for each individual repo if you specify the
>> directory name.
>
> Agreed, that'd be a useful property to preserve given how random the
> repo and file names are.
Just started to test an idea today, to get an even better history. The
idea is basically (omitting details):
1. format-patch each commit into a patch, the filename includes the
commit time (UTC)
- patches of all repos become sorted and when applying them we get
a nice history
2. hammer with sed on the patches
- add a proto prefix to the subject
- change initial position of files (i.e. move headers into
include/X11/..., txts into doc/), no need to move files later
Surprisingly, this works pretty good for the first commits (reduced
testing surface for the beginning). Last stop was at renames of files.
But, I got another idea, which I can test tomorrow.
The merge into subdirs looks straight forward and we can do that if I
find a show-stopper. Deal?
Cheers,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
