Davide Pesavento: >> Main developer repo >> ------------------- >> >> I was able to create a start git repository that takes around 66M >> as a git pack (this is how much you will have to fetch to start working >> with it). The repository is stripped clean of history and ChangeLogs, >> and has thin Manifests only. >> >> This means we don't have to wait till someone figures out the perfect >> way of converting the old CVS repository. You don't need that history >> most of the time, and you can play with CVS to get it if you really do. > > +1 >
+1 >> In any case, we would likely strip the history anyway to get a small >> repo to work with. >> >> I have prepared a basic git update hook that keeps master clean >> and attached it to the bug [1]. It enforces basic policies, prevents >> forced updates and checks GPG signatures on left-most history line. It >> can also be extended to do more extensive tree checks. > > Are we going to disallow merge commits and ask devs to rebase local > changes in order to keep the history "clean"? > I'd say it doesn't make sense to create merge commits for conflicts that arise by someone having pushed earlier than you. Merge commits should only be there if they give useful information. Also... if you merge from a _user_ who is untrusted and allow a fast-forward merge, then the signature verification fails. That means for such pull requests you either have to use "git am" or "git merge --no-ff".
