On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 12:53 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > On 16 December 2015 at 00:44, Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 4) The size of JARs is really not an issue. The entire SVN repo I mirrored > > locally (including empty interim commits to cater for svn:mergeinfos) is 4G. > > If you strip the stuff like javadocs and side projects (Nutch, Tika, Mahout) > > then I bet the entire history can fit in 1G total. Of course stripping JARs > > is also doable. > > I think this answered one of the issues. So, this is not something to > focus on. > > The question I had (I am sure a very dumb one): WHY do we care about > history preserved perfectly in Git? Because that seems to be the real > bottleneck now. Does anybody still checks out an intermediate commit > in Solr 1.4 branch? Is this primary for attribution? As a straw man > proposal, if we saved _every_ revision in some sort of expanded form > that preserves the history and git only contained release checkpoints > for Solr 1 and 3, what are we loosing? This feels - even to me - like > a "lore" question as opposed to something on the solution's critical > path. But perhaps it will trigger some useful thought.
As I keep repeating - we simply cannot delete our history from SVN - it will be preserved for as long as Apache has an SVN repo. I sense Dawid gets that what we need is a *functional* repo. Let's see what he can make for us. The more history we have the better, but only so far as it stays workable. Upayavira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
