On 3/30/21 3:29 PM, Ted Felix wrote:
On 3/30/21 7:52 AM, Ted Felix wrote:
Still, I should probably re-run against the root dir just for fun
to see what it looks like and how long it takes.
Just did that. Oddly it took less time. Only one hour instead of
two. I'm guessing that the missing history caused it to jump around
and try rescanning branches to merge. The size is about the same at
139MB. Actually, I think that's a little bit smaller. There are also
only 13010 commits. But it appears to have at least partial code all
the way back to r12. ...
We had some experience at work converting repositories (actually from
clearcase). Sometimes it was better to drop a lot of the old history.
For some repositories we started with a new repo and then:
1. copy the oldest version we want to keep to the repo
2. commit
3. Repeat with next version (taking care with deleted or move files)
This gives a minimal repository with only the versions in we really need
(say the rosegarden releases). All the history is of course still in the
old repository.
If the automatic conversion gives reasonable results that is fine by me.
Ca. 150 MB is certainly acceptable.
As to work flow. I think working with forked repositories is good.
My workflow:
1. Always work on a branch (called feature-<something> or bug-<something>
2. Because no commits go on master I can always pull (yes pull !!) form
the upstream repository (that would be the official rosegarden repo)
3. If there are changes on master I can merge these into my working branch.
4. Push to my fork
5. Make a pull request from the branch.
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
Rosegarden-devel@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
