I'm fine if we drop the jars, really. I'm just fond of having a "real"
history of a project, that's all. And I don't think the conversion
problem stems from JARs alone; I think there's some other underlying
issue. I asked for a filtered dump of the svn repo branch, perhaps I
can experiment a bit and see what's going on.
Dawid
On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> re: keeping old jars around...
>
> Having all the old jars around is a nice idea, but do we know that
> anybody really cares?
>
> Straw-man two question poll:
>
> 1> What's the most recent version of Solr/Lucene you'd be OK with
> nuking the jars?
> 2> In the last year, what's the oldest version of Solr/Lucene you've
> built that had been released for more than 6 months? ("I never do
> this" is a fine answer)
>
> Wondering how much of this is a "Trip to Abilene". Long form:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox
>
> Short form:
> "a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is
> counter to the preferences of many (or all) of the individuals in the
> group."
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:01 PM, david.w.smi...@gmail.com
> <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with Rob on this — delete the ‘jar’s from git history, for all the
>> reasons Rob said. If someone wants to attempt to actually *build* an old
>> release, and thus needs the jars, then they are welcome to use ASF SVN
>> archives for that purpose instead, and even then apparently it will be a
>> challenge based on what I’ve read today.
>>
>> Any way, maybe this will or maybe this won’t even solve the git-svn OOM
>> problem by itself? It’s worth a shot to find out as a trial run; no? Maybe
>> we could ask infra to try as an experiment. If it doesn’t solve the problem
>> then we needn’t belabor this decision at this time — it can be resumed at a
>> future git transitional discussion, which is not the subject matter of the
>> current crisis.
>>
>> bq. I know you won't accept rational arguments. :)
>>
>> Dawid, please, lets not provoke each other with that kind of talk. The
>> smiley face doesn’t make it okay.
>>
>> ~ David
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 4:26 PM Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I don't think jar files are 'history' and it was a mistake we had so
>>> > many in source control before we cleaned that up. it is much better
>>> > without them.
>>>
>>> Depends how you look at it. If your goal is to be able to actually
>>> build ancient versions then dropping those JARs is going to be a real
>>> pain. I think they should stay. Like I said, git is smart enough to
>>> omit objects that aren't referenced from the cloned branch. The
>>> conversion from SVN would have to be smart, but it's all doable.
>>>
>>> > this bloats the repository, makes clone slow for someone new who just
>>> > wants to check it out to work on it, etc.
>>>
>>> No, not really. There is a dozen ways to do it without cloning the
>>> full repo (provide a patch with --depth 1, clone a selective branch,
>>> etc.). We've had that discussion before. I know you won't accept
>>> rational arguments. :)
>>>
>>> D.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>> --
>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
