I had not heard of git-lfs looks promising https://git-lfs.github.com/?utm_source=github_site&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=gitlfs
On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > If the size of historic jars is the problem here, would looking into > git-lfs for *.jar be one workaround? I might also be totally off here :-) > > -- > Jan Høydahl, search solution architect > Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > > 6. des. 2015 kl. 00.46 skrev Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dragonsi...@gmail.com');>>: > > If lucene was a new project being started today, is there any question > about whether it would be managed in svn or git? If not, this might be a > good impetus for moving to a better world. > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ysee...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 5:53 PM, david.w.smi...@gmail.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david.w.smi...@gmail.com');> >> <david.w.smi...@gmail.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david.w.smi...@gmail.com');>> wrote: >> > I understand Gus; but we’d like to separate the question of wether we >> should >> > move from svn to git from fixing the git mirror. >> >> Except moving to git is one path to fixing the issue, so it's not >> really separate. >> Give the multiple problems that the svn-git bridge seems to have (both >> memory leaks + history), perhaps the sooner we switch to git, the >> better. >> >> -Yonik >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org');> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dev-h...@lucene.apache.org');> >> >> > > -- *Doug Turnbull **| *Search Relevance Consultant | OpenSource Connections <http://opensourceconnections.com>, LLC | 240.476.9983 Author: Relevant Search <http://manning.com/turnbull> This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of whether attachments are marked as such.
