From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Wielemaker Subject: Re: Workflow: split repository? Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:57:01 +0200 Organization: HCS, University of Amsterdam Message-ID: <200710121657.01256.wielemak@science.uva.nl> References: <200710121421.39159.wielemak@science.uva.nl> <20071012143043.GD7865@efreet.light.src> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git Mailing List To: Jan Hudec X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 12 17:17:39 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IgM2w-0005kz-R1 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:03:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754381AbXJLPDQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:03:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754370AbXJLPDQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:03:16 -0400 Received: from smtp-vbr10.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.30]:4190 "EHLO smtp-vbr10.xs4all.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753676AbXJLPDP (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:03:15 -0400 Received: from gollem.science.uva.nl (gollem.science.uva.nl [146.50.26.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr10.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l9CF2wFI045844; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:02:59 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wielemak@science.uva.nl) User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 In-Reply-To: <20071012143043.GD7865@efreet.light.src> Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi Jan, On Friday 12 October 2007 16:30, Jan Hudec wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 14:21:39 +0200, Jan Wielemaker wrote: > > Does this make sense? > > It might make more sense to convert bit by bit, to separate git > repositories. Would save you some git-filter-branch work. > > Is the only way to create a GIT repositiory right away from a subset of > > the CVS for which we want to preserve the history? > > 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. Thanks! git-filter-branch looks a bit overwhelming, but I think I can manage :-) I'll do the simple things in separate conversions. Cheers --- Jan