On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 03:25:49PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > CCing Joey for this. Joey, what would you think of merging
> > > dpkg-multicd into dselect itself?
> >
> > Not the worst idea. Please go ahead.
>
> Cool, thanks for the quick answer.
>
> > If you're interested in the CVS history for the import, please let me know.
>
> Why not, please make it available. But I'm not sure how to properly
> integrate it in the git history without having many unbuildable
> revision that would contain only that code and not the rest.
> Ccing Pierre Habouzit, maybe he has an idea on how to do it properly.
1/ do the cvs -> git conversion.
2/ apply all the rewrites you need to cleanse the log (commiter names
rewrite, and so on. Note that for CVS you can use a mailmap IIRC to
do that).
Make this import a new branch of the local repository, independant one.
Then there is two cases:
3a/ dpkg-multicd will live in the same location it did in the CVS.
3b/ dpkg-multicd will live in a separate directory
For 3a, you just need to merge the branch into dpkg's master, and be
done with it. If there is a Makefile{,.am} in both you'll have a huge
confict to deal with, but if there is no file name conflicts, you'll be
fine.
For 3b/ you have to move the CVS imported history into a directory
before doing the same merge as in 3a. This can be achieved really fast
with git filter-branch, then you fallback to 3a.
FWIW it's what was done in linux-2.6.git when the btrfs tree was merged.
This was discussed at lenght at the time, and most git expert agreed it
was the best way to go.
The "sole" problem it yields is wrt git-bisect: git-bisect will recurse
in this new branch history which you rarely want. But git-bisect is able
to prune sub-trees, so just note the last sha1 commit of the
dpkg-multicd branch before the merge to exclude it.
Second, beware that the merge commits _builds_ fine, even if it doesn't
build dpkg-multicd yet, and that you adjust the Makefiles in a latter
commit. Else it'll be a PITA for bisections as well.
That said, you should be fine.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature