Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add back original history #21

Open
ZedThree opened this issue Dec 8, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Add back original history #21

ZedThree opened this issue Dec 8, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@ZedThree
Copy link
Member

ZedThree commented Dec 8, 2020

This was originally added as a straight dump of the then-state of the files in BOUT-dev. We could "add back" the original history. This would completely divorce any existing tags or branches from the new history, so is maybe not such a great idea.

For reference, this is how I've just done it with Zoidberg:

mkdir zoidberg && cd zoidberg
git init
git remote add --fetch https://github.com/bout-project/BOUT-dev.git
git cherry-pick -Xsubtree=tools/pylib \
  $(git log --reverse --pretty=format:"%h" --follow bout/next -- tools/pylib/zoidberg)
  • git log ... to get all the commits that touch zoidberg files
  • cherry-pick -Xsubtree=tools/pylib add those commits one at a time, stripping the tools/pylib path so the files end up under zoidberg/

Requires some cleaning up along the way, but generally there aren't many conflicts -- it's usually just deleting other files brought in in those commits.

If we were to do this, the general plan of attack would be:

  1. create temporary branch from initial commit
  2. do above method to recreate the original history
  3. rebase master and any other branches on top of this
@johnomotani
Copy link
Contributor

Since we've got tags linked to releases on PyPi, I'd be inclined not to do this.

Maybe a compromise would be to create a 'pre-history' branch using the git magic, containing the history up to the point boutdata/boututils split, but not merge/rebase master? The history's there in BOUT-dev anyway, but it might be a bit easier to search like this...

@ZedThree
Copy link
Member Author

ZedThree commented Dec 8, 2020

Yeah, that was my main worry too. I think that they would be sort of ok, they might end up still existing just not on a branch. Still, pretty wary of messing with them!

prehistory branch does like a good compromise though.

ZedThree pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 8, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants