On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 08:19, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Feb 28, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote: > > > Hi devs, > > > > Since I plan to move some stuff from platform to commons I would like > > to know what you think of the history in this case. > > > > Pros including history: > > * can access easily the whole history of a moved file. > This is really an important matter, especially for those joining the project. When you follow XWiki from "outside", and not in a continuous manner, the history is of great value to understand why stuffs are like they are, and what you may do, or not when moving forward. > But sometimes > > changing packages etc make too much difference for git to see it's > > actually the same file so you loose it anyway. > If you simply change the package name, and nothing else, it is really unlikely to happen. > > > > Cons including history: > > * double the history which make tools like ohloh indicate wrong > informations > Sure, the stats will be broken, but what is the matter. This is not cheating, just a misfeature in Ohloh, since the commit are just identical, something they may notice. IMO, this is the matter of the statistical tools to improve that. > > * it's a lot easier to move without history > There should be some tools to improve that point or we may write one, once for all. So this is not a real cons either. > > > > WDYT ? > > > > Even if it was looking a bit weird to me at first I'm actually +1 to > > not move the history in this case. > > +1, FTR I'd be -0, close to -1 to move it. If/when the source repository > is removed for one reason or another, then we might want to import its > history somewhere. > Seems we are really opposite on this one, since I am close to -1 to not move it. Statistics is really less valuable IMO, it is a small interest compare to code history, that I have use a lot, especially when I have join the project and follow sparingly. So the general rule for me is: Copy history when the source repository is > removed/deleted/not used anymore. You never know what will happen to a repository in the future, so this rules is somewhat a hope on the future, no more. And remembering that we may loose history if we do some change in the old repository, is for me like hoping you will remember my birthday ;) > > Eduard was proposing to include in the first commit of the new > > repository the id of the last commit containing the files (basically > > the id of the parent of the commit deleting the files) in the old > > repository so that it's easier to find it. I'm +1 for this. > But you loose all the benefits of the IDE tools that brings history of a selection automatically and that are really useful. Moreover, if the history is rewritten due to a change in structure later, the hash may be broken. So having a broken history is hardening the task of those who want to participate. A great value compare to the statistics IMO. -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
