At Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:00:50 -0700, Belcourt, K. Noel wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 1:48 PM, John Wiegley wrote:
Klaim - Joël Lamotte <mjklaim@gmail.com> writes:
I've read that a lot of project switching to (any DSVC) did that to not have to hack the conversion tools too much. But it depends on the real needs regarding the source history.
Part of the reason we're putting this much effort into it is that we want a process which split Boost up into submodules during the migration process, while preserving as much history within each separate submodule as possible. There's just no tool out there that does that right now. So since we needed to write a tool anyway, why not solve the whole problem.
I haven't been following this closely so ignore if you've already discussed / decided this.
I'd much prefer to leave the repo structure unchanged and migrate directly into git "as is". Restructure the repo into submodules after we've made the transition to git. It will be much easier to restructure the repo with everything already in git.
That's essentially exactly what John is doing. There's no tool that faithfully does an "as is" translation of a history as complex as Boost's.
There's two upsides, we lose no commit history and it only perturbs one aspect at a time (first give people chance to use same repo layout using new tool, followed by a restructure of the repo into submodules using the new tool). I worry about perturbing too many variables at once.
I worry about having too many separate perturbations. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com