Re: git-subtree

From: David A. Greene <greened@obbligato.org>
Date: Jan 29, 2012, 22:07 UTC
Message-ID: <87aa56kvr4.fsf@smith.obbligato.org>
In-Reply-To: <87zke2yv27.fsf@smith.obbligato.org>

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

Show 11 quoted lines

>> I'd favor keeping the history and doing the munge-overlay thing.
>
> Ok, that sounds fine to me.  I'll do that in a private branch.  What
> should I send as patches to the mailing list?  I'm assuming we don't
> want [PATCH 235/12342], etc. sent to the list chronicling the entire
> history.  :)
>
>> Although part of me wants to join the histories in a subtree so that we
>> can use "git subtree" to do it (which would just be cool),
>
> Heh.  I thought about that too.  :)

I actually did end up doing a subtree merge via git subtree. It was more convenient to put it in contrib/ like that as almost everthing there is in its own subdirectory.

I'm cleaning things up there to remove redundancy, rewrite tests (using earlier work), etc. What number should I use for git-subtree tests? Here are some logical candidates:

        5 - the pull and exporting commands
        6 - the revision tree commands (even e.g. merge-base)
        7 - the porcelainish commands concerning the working tree
        9 - the git tools

git-subtree can pull and export. It also affects revision trees (it merges, for example) and is a porcelainish command that affects the working tree. It is also a "git tool" of a sort.

I originally put them under t97XX but now that is taken, as is everything up to and including t99XX.

Anyone have a strong opinion?

Thanks!

                           -Dave