Re: the gitocalypse repo splitting for v0.3

[Dave Scott <Dave.Scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Personally I think it's fine provided the archived history is available 
somewhere online for future reference. When we squashed the history of 
xen-api.git we kept the old hg repo, which is useful very occasionally.

-- 
Dave Scott

On Jun 9, 2012, at 10:58 AM, "Anil Madhavapeddy" <anil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I'm just taking a look at splitting up the Mirage repository for 0.3 and 
> wondered if anyone had a strong opinion on the repository history.  I'm 
> currently doing this:
> 
> - Start with mirage.git from master
> 
> - 'Git mv' everything into a set of sub-directories which can operate 
> independently.  Each subdir has its own configure/Makefile/ocamlfind script 
> which is copied from a common Makefile structure.
> 
> - git subtree export everything into separate repositories to host on 
> github.com/master
> 
> The last bit is the unfortunate one, since it filters out changesets before 
> the directory rearrangement and so in practical terms leaves no useful 
> history.  Ideally (somehow), we would keep the individual commit histories on 
> the files even after they've been exported. 
> 
> One alternative is to clone mirage.git once per component, and delete 
> everything else that isn't needed.  That's a pretty enormous space 
> requirement though.
> 
> It's a bit tedious, so I'm inclined to preserve copyrights and the original 
> repository, and reset the history (as I believe xen-api.git did when 
> open-sourced, right Dave?).  Any objections/ideas/agreement?
> 
> -anil
> 
> 
>