From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: greened@obbligato.org (David A. Greene) Subject: Re: git-subtree Ready #2 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:00:41 -0600 Message-ID: <87hayfv75y.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> References: <877gztmfwy.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> <8739acra5j.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> <20120215050855.GB29902@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87sjicpsr1.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> <87ty2ro1zf.fsf@smith.obbligato.org> <20120220205346.GA6335@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vd399jdwc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vobsox84l.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org To: Avery Pennarun X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 25 06:03:44 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S19nK-0003g9-1g for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 06:03:42 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750965Ab2BYFDQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:03:16 -0500 Received: from li209-253.members.linode.com ([173.255.199.253]:51769 "EHLO johnson.obbligato.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750823Ab2BYFDP (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:03:15 -0500 Received: from c-75-73-20-8.hsd1.mn.comcast.net ([75.73.20.8] helo=smith.obbligato.org) by johnson.obbligato.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1S19nY-0004Ie-P1; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:03:57 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Avery Pennarun's message of "Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:57:33 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Filter-Spam-Score: () X-Filter-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "johnson.obbligato.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Avery Pennarun writes: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Avery Pennarun writes: >>> Overall I agree that there's little benefit in preserving the history, >>> at least as far as I can see, *except* that some code changes were >>> submitted by people other than me and squashing those changes might >>> conceivably cause licensing confusion down the road. >> >> That is a good point, and it sounds like a good enough justification to Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Avery Pennarun writes: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Avery Pennarun writes: >>> Overall I agree that there's little benefit in preserving the history, >>> at least as far as I can see, *except* that some code changes were >>> submitted by people other than me and squashing those changes might >>> conceivably cause licensing confusion down the road. >> >> That is a good point, and it sounds like a good enough justification to >> merge with history, at least for me. > > Should we filter-branch or rebase the history first, or just leave it as is? > > Like I said, since I don't expect there to be any more back-and-forth > development, rebasing should be pretty harmless. Catching up on e-mail. :) I'm happy to do either (rebase or filter-branch). Just let me know. I'm about the send the test-lib.sh patch separately as it's a prereq for putting git-subtrees tests in contrib and I think it's generally useful anyway. -Dave