On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> Even if the history is considered sacrosanct (and this is often a
> theological policy, not an engineering one!), an opportunity to reduce the
> size of each reaporitory by discarding deadwood at switchover time should be
> taken seriously.
Those empty revs take what, a couple of dollars worth of disk space
(OK, x3 or 4 for backups...), vs. how much human time will it take to
make everyone involved understand that you use one procedure for
revisions before a certain date, and a different one after, and to get
diffs between them you have to either check out both copies and use
local tools or map the rev number from your old reference to the new
numbering scheme? And then there are likely to be pegged externals
to pull in components that you'll have to fix even if they stay within
the same project repo and use relative notation. I'd call not
unnecessarily changing the history you use a version control system to
preserve to be 'philosophically correct' as opposed to a theological
requirement. If your engineering choices were always right the first
time, you probably wouldn't have all these revisions in the first
place.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
