I think I'm going to upload two PDF files to prove my point. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:25 PM Hermès BÉLUSCA-MAÏTO <hermes.belu...@sfr.fr> wrote:
> Hi ! Here are some thoughts as an answer to Ziliang's mail: > > > De : Ros-dev [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] De la part de Zachary > Gorden > > Envoyé : jeudi 16 février 2017 23:03 > > À : ReactOS Development List > > Objet : Re: [ros-dev] Microsoft switched to Git > > > The fact that git has problems maintain a large history is ONE of the > limitations that prompted them to develop GVFS. There are several comments > on the first page in the discussion of the ars technica article on GVFS > that talk about git's issues with long histories: > > > https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/microsoft-hosts-the-windows-source-in-a-monstrous-300gb-git-repository/?comments=1 > > I can't link directly to the comments, but if you search by user name > you jump right to them. Two especially relevant ones are by smengler and > zaqzlea. The one by zaqzlea is also rather interesting if Linux itself has > truncated its own commit history, which is more than a bit disturbing from > > my perspective. > > I guess that this 'truncated history' story happened when Linus switched > to his newly-created Git the 16. April, 2005 : > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 > because, if one believes what's written inside > https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GraftPoint , "When Linus started > using git for maintaining his kernel tree there didn't exist any tools to > convert the old kernel history." Later on, when new features have been > added to Git, people were able to create Git repositories of Linux' code > before the 16/04/2005 Git transition, and then, to be able to see the whole > Linux history, you need to use the so-called graft points. Examples are > given here: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3264283/linux-kernel-historical-git-repository-with-full-history > https://archive.org/details/git-history-of-linux > > > > We also see a few remarks by a guy calling himself scuttle22 who claims > that truncating history and dropping it is "common practice" and > acceptable. His original posts have all been downvoted to oblivion, > presumably because others take a less lackadaisical perspective > > on preserving history for purposes of documentation and accountability. > > This is possibly "common practice", maybe in order to reduce the git > repos... In there: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4515580/how-do-i-remove-the-old-history-from-a-git-repository > , someone ask for example how to trim the history before a certain date, > while the complete copy of history is kept in an archive repository.... > > > I also take the occasion to mention the peculiar possibility, with Git, to > have a repository having multiple roots ("initial commits"): for example, > someone did the error once in the linux kernel repo: > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1603.2/01926.html . > > Best, > Hermès > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev -- Best regards, Alex Ionescu
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
