On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@cs.put.poznan.pl> wrote: > Yeah, but it misses the point -- history is history, if there were > jars in it, you shouldn't just strip them, it'd be confusing. > > How was it back when Lucene was merging with Solr? Didn't it just > initiate with a new clean repo? Maybe not all of the history is really > needed -- if we limited ourselves to, say, all of the history that > includes ivy then the size of the repo would drop significantly... but > again, to me size doesn't really matter at all; one initial clone is > no-cost. Go make yourself a cup of tea, come back and you're set.
It seems like we can do something reasonable here either way. We are talking about a lot of jars. But I would love to see this kinda stuff (what history will be imported/preserved elsewhere) as part of the proposal, that is all. Making the slowest operation of git (which is "turtle slow") more reasonable can go a long way to win over people, like me that are more on the -0 side. I re-clone from time to time, maybe someone else will just keep their old workflow and use 5 checkouts or whatever they want. So yeah, I think the size of the jars are very relevant. All these silly jars are maybe even the root cause of the "huge repository" / git mirroring issue that spawned this thread. And while it might not be relevant to your workflow, try to imagine that other people have different workflow of their own, and are just fine with that. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
