On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Fri Dec 28 2012, Tim Blechmann <tim-AT-klingt.org> wrote:
... 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) ...
As noted earlier, we can create a "best effort" modularized past. However, there are some caveats. For example, some files have probably been moved around in ways that could cause that history to appear to lose the file in any given modularized repo, while it shows up in some other modularized repo.
Speaking as a developer, the most common everyday use I (and probably others) make of history is to look at the log for a library (or subset) and then look at a particular changeset. IIUC, a "best effort" modularized past would work fine for that use, except for the rare case where a file moved between libraries. It is very rare for me to want to switch all of a Boost working copy back to some past tag or revision. So as long as all the known caveats are documented, I'd prefer "best effort" modularized history, at least as I currently understand it. --Beman