Re: [oll-user] Call for initial feedback

[Urs L. <ul...@op...>]

Am 21.03.2013 22:46, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
>
>
>
> 2013/3/21 Urs Liska <ul...@op... <mailto:ul...@op...>>
>
>     ...
>
>     But I think I have managed to set up a new, merged repository.
>
>
> Congrats!
>
>     It is here: https://sourceforge.net/p/openlilylib/mergerepos/
>     and I have uploaded a tar.gz:
>     https://dl.dropbox.com/u/49478835/ollMerged.tar.gz
>     It would be nice if you (Janek) could have a glance at that and
>     its history, just to see if it looks reasonable to you).
>
>
> I've looked and i don't see anything wrong.  Looks like a clean job!
Well, it wasn't really.
I was quite irritated that checking out the lgFindstale branch let 
disappear quite a lot of folders (fortunately this doesn't actually 
shock me anymore because I trust that checking out another branch will 
bring me my folders back).
After some thinking I realized the cause for that (well, actually I woke 
up with that thought ;-) ): I had first imported the lilyglyphs repo (to 
which lgFindstale belongs) and then the musicexamples repo. Therefore 
the lgFindstale branch didn't include the commits introducing the 
musicexamples files.
So actually it was all solved with

git checkout lgFindstale
git rebase master

Even without any rebase conflicts.
Now it seems OK and nearly ready to replace the original repository.
>
>     AFAICS it is a working repository, although history isn't all too
>     nice (e.g. in such a combined repo I would prefix each commit
>     message with a label (like oll, xmp) which I obviously haven't
>     done in the past).
>
>
> You should be able to do this now using git filter-branch (of course 
> this will change history, but maybe it's worth it).  Some info for 
> example here:
> http://mm0hai.net/blog/2011/03/10/rewriting-git-commit-message-history.html
I'll look into that (and read the "rewriting history" chapter of the 
main book). History rewriting is surely not an issue in this case, as I 
think I can assume the repository sort of private, I can't imagine 
anybody actually has based some work on it yet).
And if I can manage to make the history look cleaner (as a kind of 
initial state) I'd appreciate it - but only if that doesn't mean I have 
to inspect the 536 commits individually ;-)

Best
Urs
>
> best,
> janek

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...