There of course is a huge difference between modules in a cvs
repository and subdirectories in a git repository. You only check out
modules which you wish to follow from a cvs repository but you are
forced to clone all subdirectories in a git repository. The history is
not shared between cvs modules, changes to the webpage did not cause
my copy of sources to become outdated. I think that changes to the
webpage should not show up when you browse the history of maxima
sources. Separate things should go into separate repositories.
Also, when people browse the project pages at sourceforge and see the
instructions on how to clone our repository, these instructions are
not correct. I think the only way to correct this is that we use the
standard layout for git repositories on sourceforge.
Andrej
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Leo Butler <l.butler at ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>