From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A36B20282 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:32:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751879AbdFPGcK (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jun 2017 02:32:10 -0400 Received: from resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.162]:47228 "EHLO resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751755AbdFPGcJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jun 2017 02:32:09 -0400 Received: from resomta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.234]) by resqmta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id LknQdcT3PWFyRLknhdG3nx; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:32:09 +0000 Received: from vm-fedora21.eagercon.com ([IPv6:2601:647:4d04:5190:20c:29ff:fe70:d3be]) by resomta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id Lkngdue0emQlXLkngdnHlh; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:32:09 +0000 Subject: Re: Best practices for updating old repos To: Stefan Beller References: <59432BCC.2040901@eagerm.com> Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" From: Michael Eager Message-ID: <59437B68.5090601@eagerm.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 23:32:08 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfGcNuMB6PituoaBqNUjQ9qnfGxZ5+g+9M0LpxUBemdXSUUKIzqtMhVql8/LCpwcyKzYQDHTiFiY5h2ENjaNwc1I36/+CAqbhBdFv3AoddVNN5W98nsd9 /O8TYkJfO9qYqp+x5G8CmabhFXY+HnVKNBj+nl0dRLytxd0UpOWaWd6MT374ED6F4zzxcAQUBufm+A== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 06/15/2017 09:22 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Michael Eager wrote: > >> One other variant of the rebase approach I've thought of is to do >> this incrementally, rebasing the old repo against an upstream commit >> a short time after the old repo was forked, fixing any conflicts, >> rebuilding and fixing build failures. Then repeat, with a bit >> newer commit. Then repeat, until I get to the top. This sounds >> tedious, but some of it can be automated. It also might result in >> my making the changes compatible with upstream code which was later >> abandoned or significantly changed. > > This sounds like > > https://github.com/mhagger/git-imerge > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMZ2_-Ny_zc Thanks, Stefan. I'll look into this; it may be similar to what I was thinking of doing. I'll have to watch the video. -- Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077