[racket-dev] proposal for moving to packages: repository

From: Carl Eastlund (cce at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Thu May 23 07:02:18 EDT 2013

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:

> A few minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> >
> >     9 hours ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> >     > I was going to comment on the same thing.  While a naive use
> >     > of "git filter-branch" might not retain the history, it should
> >     > be entirely possible to do something a little more intelligent
> >     > and keep that history.
> >
> >     Just to be clear, this is exactly what you can't get with
> >     filter-branch.
> >
> >     > Essentially each of the new repositories could keep the entire
> >     > history of the original repository, followed by a massive
> >     > move/rename, then moving forward with an individual package.
> >
> >     This can work, but it is unrelated to filter-branch: it's
> >     basically starting each package repository from a clone of the
> >     monolithic repo, then move & shuffle things around.
> >
> >     This seems wrong to me in all kinds of ways -- but if someone
> >     wants to do this with *their* package (ie, not a package that I
> >     need to deal with), then it's certainly an option.
> >
> > It doesn't seem wrong to me.  It's an accurate representation of the
> > history of the project, which is exactly what git is for retaining.
> > Where does the problem come from?
> The problem of filter-branch?  It has no problems, it does exactly
> what it is supposed to do.

It has "no problems"?  Where above you stated "this is exactly what you
can't get with filter-branch" in reference to keeping our packages'
relevant history.  That sounds like a problem to me, in our current context.

But filter-branch is not what I was talking about.  I was talking about
_not_ using filter-branch, and instead doing something that does keep

>  > If git filter-branch doesn't maintain the history we need, it's not
> > the right tool for the job.
> If the drracket files are irrelevant for the swindle package then they
> shouldn't be in the swindle repository -- and on the exact same token,
> the development history of drracket shouldn't be there either.
> (This is not new, BTW, I think that there was general concensus right
> from the start of the package talk that the monolithic repo is just a
> host for a bunch of separate projects.)

Okay, then let's purge the history of irrelevant files, but keep the
history of relevant files even if they weren't in the "right" directory.
If the monolithic repo is just a host for a bunch of separate projects,
shouldn't it be possible to tease out their more-or-less separate histories?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20130523/98769842/attachment.html>

Posted on the dev mailing list.