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

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
history.


>  > 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?

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