Hi, Denis did a better job than me in detailing his concerns. I share the same opinion with him that history is much more important then statistics tools.
Thanks, Eduard On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
