On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Andrej Vodopivec wrote:
< I think it would be better if we had separate repositories for the
< source code, webpage and other things we want to preserve from cvs.
Why?
I have yet to hear what would be better about splitting the repository
into pieces. These things were in a single cvs repository as modules, not in
separate repositories.
< Now that everything is in git, we can use git to make this change.
<
< So I suggest that we leave the repo repository as it is now. We can
< create a repository which contains only the source code with
<
< git filter-branch --subdirectory-filter maxima -- --all
<
< and put that to the maxima repository. This also makes the generic
< sourceforge instructions for git correct for the main repository
< (http://sourceforge.net/scm/?type=git&group_id=4933). Similarly for
< the website
<
< git filter-branch --subdirectory-filter site-xml -- --all
<
< and push that to the site-xml repository.
I think that it makes sense to maintain the unity of the repository.
That is how things were under CVS and I fail to see/have not heard
a compelling reason for changing this arrangement under Git.
Robert suggested that the historic modules be cut off master. This
seems sensible to me; we can create a separate branch containing only
those modules. I don't think it is so sensible to separate the
webpage and development code, since changes in the latter are often
followed by changes in the former. It is easier to cut things apart
than stitch them back again.
Leo
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.