i didn't follow the whole discussion, I suggest following it more closely. This alarmism about losing history has gotten seriously out-of-hand, IMO, and the only way to bring it under control is for people to pay close attention to what's actually being proposed.
well, i *did* check the history of the libraries at github, which contain a lot of `latest from svn' messages, which is not exactly helpful when annotating sources or reading log messages ... but having lost my history when importing my libs from git into svn, i personally don't really care ... it could however be an issue for people working on older libraries ...
so isn't it possible to rewrite the history in a way to keep the the old history, but filter out everything which is not in libs/foo or boost/foo? then each modular repository would have only the history relevant for that specific lib. that should leave the resulting repository at an acceptable size, but keep the history that is relevant for the individual modules ... has this been considered or are there arguments against this approach? Please re-read http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/237389/ where I called this "modularizing the past." We can do it, but I have some concerns.
keeping the history in an archive and outside of the new modularized repositories *is* the equivalent of loosing the archive for development purposes, as it cannot be used during the development workflow (e.g. IDE integrations for annotations). of course, a modularized history is not `reality' and we won't be able to bisect issues for example or checkout specific tags ... iac, i'd rather have a `modularized past', knowing where certain code comes from and why it is there than a fully working `past' (if this is required, one can always go to the archive) ... tim