My experiments with filter-branch to reduce the repos size by getting rid of unrelated history didn't yield great results. I'm going with plan B which is
- keeping castle-READONLY-SVN-dump - which holds the whole history if we ever need it - creating new repos according to the structure that we've agreed upon - moving only recent history to the new repositories - remove the existing fragmented repositories Speak up now if you have concerns On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:51 PM, G. Richard Bellamy <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay then... Glad I checked. :) > > Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse any errors or omissions. > > On Sep 26, 2011, at 1:42 PM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> You're NOT suggesting I prune the history of each individual repo, >>> correct? >> >> Yes I am. >> In practice we dont need it. And if we do, we can get them from >> https://github.com/castleproject/castle-READONLY-SVN-dump >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:38 AM, G. Richard Bellamy >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I _think_ you're saying to prune the history pulled into the aggregate >>> project, but want to make 100% sure I'm clear. :) >>> >>> You're NOT suggesting I prune the history of each individual repo, >>> correct? >>> >>> -rb >>> >>> On 9/22/2011 2:52 PM, hammett wrote: >>>> >>>> Count on me for help. >>>> >>>> Regarding history, I'd say YAGNI. We have history from the previous >>>> repositories if we really want them. It's not worth the amout of >>>> work... >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> hammett >> http://hammett.castleproject.org/ > -- Cheers, hammett http://hammett.castleproject.org/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
