Re: Merged branch with history

[Francesco Salvestrini]

On Sunday 02 August 2009, Peter Simons wrote:
> Hi Dustin,
>
>  > http://github.com/djmitche/autoconf-archive/commits/master
>
> 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,
Francesco

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