One more thing, perhaps of importance, the raw Lucene repo contains all the history of projects that then turned top-level (Nutch, Mahout). These could also be dropped (or ignored) when converting to git. If we agree JARs are not relevant, why should projects not directly related to Lucene/ Solr be?
Dawid On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Don’t know how much we have of historic jars in our history. > > I actually do know. Or will know. In about ~10 hours. I wrote a script > that does the following: > > 1) git log all revisions touching https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene > 2) grep revision numbers > 3) use svnrdump to get every single commit (revision) above, in > incremental mode. > > This will allow me to: > > 1) recreate only Lucene/ Solr SVN, locally. > 2) measure the size of SVN repo. > 3) measure the size of any conversion to git (even if it's one-by-one > checkout, then-sync with git). > > From what I see up until now size should not be an issue at all. Even > with all binary blobs so far the SVN incremental dumps measure ~3.7G > (and I'm about 75% done). There is one interesting super-large commit, > this one: > > svn log -r1240618 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r1240618 | gsingers | 2012-02-04 22:45:17 +0100 (Sat, 04 Feb 2012) | 1 line > > LUCENE-2748: bring in old Lucene docs > > This commit diff weights... wait for it... 1.3G! I didn't check what > it actually was. > > Will keep you posted. > > D. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
