[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Merged branch with history

From: Francesco Salvestrini
Subject: Re: Merged branch with history
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 16:48:01 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.9.10

On Sunday 02 August 2009, Peter Simons wrote:
> Hi Dustin,
>  >
> very nice, thank you for your efforts.
>  > It also maintains full history for the macros in m4/, by virtue
>  > of a 'git filter-branch' run. Things aren't all sunny -- the repo
>  > now contains two commits for each change to the macros (one at
>  > the top level, and one in m4/).
> Originally, I suggested that filter-branch rewrite because I assumed
> that this was the only way for us to get the master/maint merge done
> without breaking macro history in Gitweb.
> Now, the common consensus I perceive these days is that we shouldn't
> rely on Gitweb that much anyway and that we should rather generate a
> custom representation of every macro's history and include that in
> the documentation.

Good to hear that :-)

> If we go that road, then there is no problem 
> breaking the macro history in Gitweb. Under these circumstances, a
> straight master/maint merge without any fancy branch re-writing
> would be fine, IMHO.
> Does that sound reasonable?

A straight master/maint merge and a mass-move of all macros into the m4 
directory seems the less troublesome way, at a first glance.

Since we're going to generate a per-macro-history-page automatically ... which 
is the best rearrangement which eases the automatic-history generation too ?

Since we are pondering how to rearrange the repository ... let us find the 
less troublesome way for all tasks.

Have a good day,

If a can of Alpo costs 38 cents, would it cost $2.50 in Dog Dollars?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]