From: David A. Greene <greened@obbligato.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:00:41 GMT
Subject: Re: git-subtree Ready #2
Message-ID: <87hayfv75y.fsf@smith.obbligato.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHqTa-1fbi5W7R2fLu3bp7Yuv_ZB9nxhgjHkLGuU8-V4016+JA@mail.gmail.com>

Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com> 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