Split gzutils into functional pieces

[mjcarroll]

GzUtils has gotten unmaintainably large. This splits the functions into separate files.

[j-rivero]

GzUtils has gotten unmaintainably large. This splits the functions into separate files.

+1 . Side effects of merging this:

• it's going to be hard to do forward/backward ports from/to the gz-cmake2 branch. Is there anything stopping us of sending this to the gz-cmake2 branch?
• The current open PRs will need to rebase and probably adapt new code to this change.

[mjcarroll]

it's going to be hard to do forward/backward ports from/to the gz-cmake2 branch. Is there anything stopping us of sending this to the gz-cmake2 branch?

Hmm, good call. I don't think there is anything stopping us from doing that here. I may re-open this against cmake2, we can land it with Ign file names and then apply the renaming?

The current open PRs will need to rebase and probably adapt new code to this change.

I think git should track the split/renaming without too much issue, but let me try it on one PR first.

[j-rivero]

it's going to be hard to do forward/backward ports from/to the gz-cmake2 branch. Is there anything stopping us of sending this to the gz-cmake2 branch?

Hmm, good call. I don't think there is anything stopping us from doing that here. I may re-open this against cmake2, we can land it with Ign file names and then apply the renaming?

Yep, a bit of extra-work sorry but probably will make things easier for the future and reorganize the things on gz-cmake2 as well.

The current open PRs will need to rebase and probably adapt new code to this change.

I think git should track the split/renaming without too much issue, but let me try it on one PR first.

Thanks, anyway we can work on solving the problems that appear.

[scpeters]

it's going to be hard to do forward/backward ports from/to the gz-cmake2 branch. Is there anything stopping us of sending this to the gz-cmake2 branch?

Hmm, good call. I don't think there is anything stopping us from doing that here. I may re-open this against cmake2, we can land it with Ign file names and then apply the renaming?

The current open PRs will need to rebase and probably adapt new code to this change.

I think git should track the split/renaming without too much issue, but let me try it on one PR first.

I think it would be easier to resolve the conflicts when merging forward if the change has been applied separately to each branch. I would be fine with merging to gz-cmake3 first and then backporting to ign-cmake2. There's already a conflict on gz-cmake3 though

[scpeters]

conflicts

[j-rivero]

conflicts

I've tried to resolve them. Mostly applied #326 in 7ceb5f6 and #334 in cbf5249

[j-rivero]

Good for me. @mjcarroll I leave it open until you or @scpeters give a last view on this.

[scpeters]

Good for me. @mjcarroll I leave it open until you or @scpeters give a last view on this.

I double-checked the changes using meld and noticed a few small differences: see #349. I'll be ready to approve if we merge that into this branch.

[j-rivero]

I double-checked the changes using meld and noticed a few small differences: see #349. I'll be ready to approve if we merge that into this branch.

Good catch, merged!

[mjcarroll]

Thanks Steve, I think we are all good here!