Re: git-subtree Ready #2

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 27, 2012, 21:06 UTC
Message-ID: <7vobsk56md.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <87ty2ft0tm.fsf@smith.obbligato.org>

greened@obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>> I'm happy to do either (rebase or filter-branch).  Just let me know.
>>
>> I would understand Avery's "should we filter-branch/rebase, or is it OK
>> as-is?", but I do not understand what you mean by "either rebase or
>> filter-branch is fine".
>
> Sorry, got mixed up there.  I'm not that familiar with filter-branch.
> Now I understand you do both.  :)
>
> So have we decided to keep the history?

I think the discussion so far was:

 - Peff suggested to keep the history with a true merge;

 - I said the history before the final commit in Avery's tree did not look
   so useful for future archaeology; and then

 - Avery corrected me that there are contributions by other people and the
   credits will be lost if we discarded the history;

and everybody (including me) now favors to have the history.

So the answer to your question is yes, but I do not think we heard opinion from anybody regarding the question by Avery yet. I personally do not see how it would help us if the old history is rewritten at this point.