Repository Reorganization Question

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Montag, den 09.12.2013, 09:24 +0100 schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel:
> What kind of links are you referring to btw? I don't see any clickable
> GHC SHA1 ids these days anymore... :-)

well, people do write SHA1 ids in tickets comments directly. (At least I
do. And then I rebase my branch. And then the link is dead ;-))

But in contrast to the mailing list link issue, even if we rewrite the
testsuite before merging, it will be possible, although a bit more
tedious, to look up the corresponding new hash.

It is hard to predict what is more common: Following SHA1-links from old
(and in the future even older) tickets, or doing git archeology inside
the repo. I guess both are relatively rare that we are risking to spend
more time discussing it than we’d save otherwise...

The only thing that will permanently hurt if we do not fix it now are
the binary blobs. I do often make new checkouts (I still do separate
feature branches in separate checkouts, plus validate trees, plus
baseline trees to compare the effect of my changes). So I’m still in
favor of rewriting the branch.

We could even check in the ID→ID mapping in the repo and have a easy to
discover ./testsuite/lookup-old-id script so that this is even less an
annoyance.


Greetings,
Joachim

PS: What happens if we set up replace objects in the git repo that cgit
and trac are using:
https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-replace.html
Would that make the old links still work?

-- 
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
  Jabber: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de  • GPG-Key: 0x4743206C
  Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20131209/8b96839e/attachment.sig>