> One of the reasons I'm in favour of not importing the history into git > is that a clean repository is in some ways attractive to new users. > I'm in particular thinking of a friend of Paul's who was interested in > doing some work on TiddlyWiki, but didn't bother in the end because > the repository took so long to download.
As you've already stated, that won't be an issue anymore once there's a separate repository for the core. Indeed, that new repo will be tiny compared to most serious projects. In other words, My Hair is a Bird. > What I am wary of here is policy being influenced by people who are > not affected by the policy. That sounds like you do not expect other developers to analyze or even contribute to the core. As stated earlier*, this notion is a massive problem of and in this community. > In other words do Fred and Eric want the history in git because: > a) moving the history to git is "a good thing" > or > b) they actually look at the history quite often, and not moving the > history to git would be an inconvenience Both, but primarily (b) - so I *do* expect being directly affected, both as a (potential) core and third-party developer. Just for the record, IMO even (a) would be sufficient, as the cost of retaining history is negligible. -- F. * http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev/msg/603776133060a464 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev?hl=en.
