I have no dog in the svn vs git debate honestly. I want to say how important it is to keep healthy history. I recently went on a bit of code archeology dig recently to figure out why something in Lucene was done the way it was. It was handy that the history went as far back as it did, but I had to switch around to different places to continue the history. For example, the abrupt shift that seems to be around when Solr/Lucene were put together had me digging for the last pure lucene tag. Its over at lucene/java/branches NOT lucene/dev/tags with teh other tags.
Then when you get to the branch for lucene-101, the first commit is: > 2001: New repository initialized by cvs2svn. Unable to find a cvs repo, my hunt stopped (love to hear if anyone has a CVS repo -- maybe from Jakarta?) So removing some jars isn't a big deal. But cutting off history and restarting at some arbitrary point can be annoying and make it harder to dig up more about why things are the way they are. /steps down from soapbox -Doug On Sunday, May 31, 2015, 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. > > Dawid > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
