Re: Merged branch with history

[Francesco Salvestrini]

Hi all,

On Sunday 02 August 2009, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Francesco
>
> Salvestrini<address@hidden> wrote:
> > 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 ?
>
> Not to be too forceful here, but with the number of projects going on
> here, I'd like to just get this one done.  Let's use the octopus merge
> to pretend that the macros have *always* been in the m4/ subdirectory.
>  This moment will fade into history and we will soon have forgotten it
> completely.  The current gitweb-based history mechanisms will still
> work until we develop something new.  There's really no downside here!

I don't like the current setup nor I care about gitweb history as I stated 
previously, you should know that ;-)

I could even daresay:

1) 'git log --follow' is all that I need
2) Forgetting to write-history-per-macros could render our life even easier

but

Since we must write a script that walks the per-macro-git-history ... we 
should think twice about the way we are heading into, instead of heading down 
easy handed and regret the choice later.

I wouldn't like to see someone complaining that the automatic-generation 
script got twisted by an erroneous choose made easy-handed...

ANYWAY: I like both approach (your and the Peter's one) and I simply state: 
which is the better one for both tasks (repository rearrangement, automatic 
history generation) ?

Have a good day,
Francesco

-- 
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator
of sociopathic tendencies.
                -- Zoso