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

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:

> Just now, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> >
> >     A few minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> >     >
> >     > 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.
>
> "Relevant history" is vague.  The thing that you can't do with
> filter-branch is keep the complete history if you remove files from
> the history -- the files that are gone go with their history.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Like I said: what you're suggesting means keeping the full monolithic
> history of developement in the main repo, including all of the
> irrelevant files (which will be removed in the tip, but included in
> the repo).
>
> >     > 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?
>
> (*sigh*; please read the other email, where I went over this
> thoroughly.)
>

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.

--Carl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20130523/0f600ee3/attachment.html>