On 16 December 2015 at 00:44, Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 4) The size of JARs is really not an issue. The entire SVN repo I mirrored
> locally (including empty interim commits to cater for svn:mergeinfos) is 4G.
> If you strip the stuff like javadocs and side projects (Nutch, Tika, Mahout)
> then I bet the entire history can fit in 1G total. Of course stripping JARs
> is also doable.

I think this answered one of the issues. So, this is not something to focus on.

The question I had (I am sure a very dumb one): WHY do we care about
history preserved perfectly in Git? Because that seems to be the real
bottleneck now. Does anybody still checks out an intermediate commit
in Solr 1.4 branch? Is this primary for attribution? As a straw man
proposal, if we saved _every_ revision in some sort of expanded form
that preserves the history and git only contained release checkpoints
for Solr 1 and 3, what are we loosing? This feels - even to me - like
a "lore" question as opposed to something on the solution's critical
path. But perhaps it will trigger some useful thought.

Regards,
   Alex.

----
Newsletter and resources for Solr beginners and intermediates:
http://www.solr-start.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to