I guess I don't understand how having two git repos is useful. How do
commits get from the small one to the 'real' one?
Or are you suggesting that we have the large one purely as an archive
which no-one ever looks at ever again? In which case I don't see the point
since we have svn to do exactly that.
Yeah, I was talking about a read-only archive. And yes, existing SVN will
cover that. We can probably delete ported branches from SVN HEAD to reduce
confusion (of course they will still be in history).
The only (very minor) downside I see is that some tools out there (like
ohloh) will think that our project is "young again". Whether that is good
or bad, or we even care…
I don't.
Andrus
On Apr 25, 2013, at 8:17 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <[email protected]> wrote:
I guess I don't understand how having two git repos is useful. How do
commits get from the small one to the 'real' one?
Or are you suggesting that we have the large one purely as an archive
which no-one ever looks at ever again? In which case I don't see the point
since we have svn to do exactly that.
The only (very minor) downside I see is that some tools out there (like
ohloh) will think that our project is "young again". Whether that is good
or bad, or we even care...
Ari
On 26/04/13 10:12am, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
So essentially the question is whether we want 2 Git repos (a smaller
active repo and full history archive), or whether we want to keep the
archive in SVN.
I am fine with the second approach if that helps with the migration.
Essentially this means limiting trunk to 3.0 commits and branches to 3.0
and 3.1. If everyone ok with this, I will provide some guidance to David,
with specific rev numbers and branch names.
Andrus
On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 26/04/13 8:35am, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Ari Maniatis (JIRA) <[email protected]>
wrote:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5936?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13642306#comment-13642306]
Ari Maniatis commented on INFRA-5936:
-------------------------------------
If the git repository will end up being 6Gb, could we look at
reducing the size of the problem by eliminating some branches or discarding
history older than a certain age?
I was thinking about that too. My current idea is to just create a
second repo for the current work, forking from a point where we switched to
Maven and dropped all the jar dependencies. And keeping the 6GB one for the
history.
There is no clean way to do that. In fact the thing which stopped me
from moving from svn to git in my work was that git has no way to clone a
partial repository.
So we could:
* discard all branches older than 3.0
* discard all commits older than when we started work on 3.0
That would drastically reduce the size of the repo and the difficulty
of the migration. And really, how often do we look at blame?
Personally I don't really care either way (I still like svn!), but 6Gb
will prevent a lot of people from contributing some small patch.
Ari
--
-------------------------->
Aristedes Maniatis
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
--
-------------------------->
Aristedes Maniatis
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
