Re: Workflow: split repository?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jan Hudec
Date: Friday, October 12, 2007 - 7:30 am

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 14:21:39 +0200, Jan Wielemaker wrote:

It might make more sense to convert bit by bit, to separate git repositorie=
s.
Would save you some git-filter-branch work.


It can, but you have to be aware of the pitfalls. Git allows you to create
a new history, which is defined modification of the original history. There
is git-filter-branch command, that can create a repository with just
a subtree and such. But it's a new, independent, history. You can't merge
between the old and new one (but you can rebase the few commits someone made
while you were converting) and anyone who has the old history in his repo
will still have it.


No, it's not. It will save you work if you can do as much splitting as
possible during the conversion, ie. convert the bits you know will be
separate separately (and combine them using submodules as appropriate).

But if you have bits that will take a lot of work to factor out, you can
convert to git, make the other code ready to use a submodule and than use
git-filter-branch to extract the right bits of history for the submodule.

--=20
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz>
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Workflow: split repository?, Jan Wielemaker, (Fri Oct 12, 5:21 am)
Re: Workflow: split repository?, Jan Hudec, (Fri Oct 12, 7:30 am)
Re: Workflow: split repository?, Jan Wielemaker, (Fri Oct 12, 7:57 am)