Hi, On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 07:45:59PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 07:34:03AM +0100, Daniel Lange wrote: > > Am 13.11.18 um 23:09 schrieb Moritz Muehlenhoff: > > > The current data structure works very well for us and splitting the files > > > has many downsides. > > > > Could you detail what those many downsides are besides the scripts that > > need to be amended? > > Nearly all the tasks of actually editing the data require a look at the > complete > data, e.g. to check whether something was tracked before, whether there's an > ITP > for something, whether something was tracked as NFU in the past and lots more.
Agreed from my point of view as well, history is and contains valuable data, we do not want to loose that. And even if researching in older items and made changes takes time. You will even see that with time passed people started to put more information in the respective done changes/commits, giving rationales, notes, and additional informations. And if that all is going to be too much hassle for the salsa infrastructure we would need/could move the repository to somewhere else, with the unfortunate downside on contributors from the whole comunity. But admitely the people regularly contributing is overviewable. On the agreement side I fully agree that initial clones of the repo are a problem. It as well would be intreesting to see what git upstream would think on that usecase and #913124 raised by Guido. Regards, Salvatore