> I guess I don't understand how having two git repos is useful. How do commits > get from the small one to the 'real' one? > > Or are you suggesting that we have the large one purely as an archive which > no-one ever looks at ever again? In which case I don't see the point since we > have svn to do exactly that.
Yeah, I was talking about a read-only archive. And yes, existing SVN will cover that. We can probably delete ported branches from SVN HEAD to reduce confusion (of course they will still be in history). > The only (very minor) downside I see is that some tools out there (like > ohloh) will think that our project is "young again". Whether that is good or > bad, or we even care… I don't. Andrus On Apr 25, 2013, at 8:17 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <a...@maniatis.org> wrote: > I guess I don't understand how having two git repos is useful. How do commits > get from the small one to the 'real' one? > > Or are you suggesting that we have the large one purely as an archive which > no-one ever looks at ever again? In which case I don't see the point since we > have svn to do exactly that. > > The only (very minor) downside I see is that some tools out there (like > ohloh) will think that our project is "young again". Whether that is good or > bad, or we even care... > > Ari > > > On 26/04/13 10:12am, Andrus Adamchik wrote: >> 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 >>> >> > > -- > --------------------------> > Aristedes Maniatis > GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A >
