So essentially the question is whether we want 2 Git repos (a smaller active repo and full history archive), or whether we want to keep the archive in SVN.
I am fine with the second approach if that helps with the migration. Essentially this means limiting trunk to 3.0 commits and branches to 3.0 and 3.1. If everyone ok with this, I will provide some guidance to David, with specific rev numbers and branch names. Andrus On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <a...@maniatis.org> wrote: > On 26/04/13 8:35am, Andrus Adamchik wrote: >> >> On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Ari Maniatis (JIRA) <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> [ >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5936?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13642306#comment-13642306 >>> ] >>> >>> Ari Maniatis commented on INFRA-5936: >>> ------------------------------------- >>> >>> If the git repository will end up being 6Gb, could we look at reducing the >>> size of the problem by eliminating some branches or discarding history >>> older than a certain age? >> >> I was thinking about that too. My current idea is to just create a second >> repo for the current work, forking from a point where we switched to Maven >> and dropped all the jar dependencies. And keeping the 6GB one for the >> history. > > There is no clean way to do that. In fact the thing which stopped me from > moving from svn to git in my work was that git has no way to clone a partial > repository. > > So we could: > > * discard all branches older than 3.0 > * discard all commits older than when we started work on 3.0 > > That would drastically reduce the size of the repo and the difficulty of the > migration. And really, how often do we look at blame? > > Personally I don't really care either way (I still like svn!), but 6Gb will > prevent a lot of people from contributing some small patch. > > Ari > > > -- > --------------------------> > Aristedes Maniatis > GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A >
