<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Eli Barzilay <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eli@barzilay.org" target="_blank">eli@barzilay.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">Just now, Carl Eastlund wrote:<br>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Eli Barzilay <<a href="mailto:eli@barzilay.org">eli@barzilay.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> A few minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:<br>
> ><br>
</div><div class="im">> > It doesn't seem wrong to me. It's an accurate representation<br>
> > of the history of the project, which is exactly what git is<br>
> > for retaining. Where does the problem come from?<br>
><br>
> The problem of filter-branch? It has no problems, it does<br>
> exactly what it is supposed to do.<br>
><br>
> It has "no problems"? Where above you stated "this is exactly what<br>
> you can't get with filter-branch" in reference to keeping our<br>
> packages' relevant history.<br>
<br>
</div>"Relevant history" is vague. The thing that you can't do with<br>
filter-branch is keep the complete history if you remove files from<br>
the history -- the files that are gone go with their history.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> But filter-branch is not what I was talking about. I was talking<br>
> about _not_ using filter-branch, and instead doing something that<br>
> does keep history.<br>
<br>
</div>Like I said: what you're suggesting means keeping the full monolithic<br>
history of developement in the main repo, including all of the<br>
irrelevant files (which will be removed in the tip, but included in<br>
the repo).<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> > If git filter-branch doesn't maintain the history we need, it's not<br>
> > the right tool for the job.<br>
><br>
> If the drracket files are irrelevant for the swindle package then they<br>
> shouldn't be in the swindle repository -- and on the exact same token,<br>
> the development history of drracket shouldn't be there either.<br>
><br>
> (This is not new, BTW, I think that there was general concensus right<br>
> from the start of the package talk that the monolithic repo is just a<br>
> host for a bunch of separate projects.)<br>
><br>
> Okay, then let's purge the history of irrelevant files, but keep the<br>
> history of relevant files even if they weren't in the "right"<br>
> directory. If the monolithic repo is just a host for a bunch of<br>
> separate projects, shouldn't it be possible to tease out their<br>
> more-or-less separate histories?<br>
<br>
</div>(*sigh*; please read the other email, where I went over this<br>
thoroughly.)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I just went over all your emails on this topic, and I can't find a single one where you addressed this specific proposal at all. I don't know which one of us is misunderstanding another on this point.<br>
<br></div><div>--Carl<br></div></div><br></div></div>