Fine by me.
Any time line for that change?
I'm about to release Windsor+Core+Facilities as soon as I get one
outstanding feature from Craig.
K
On 23/10/2011 2:12 PM, hammett wrote:
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.
