On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Dominique Pellé <[email protected] > wrote:
> Manuel Ortega <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It would be nice if, when this gets finalized, the new repo trims out > > ancient stuff like 7.0, 7.1, and 7.2. There's no reason for everyone to > > have to clone all that and carry it around on disk. Yes, I know about > > shallow clones, but they're pretty wonky, especially wrt making PRs from > a > > shallow clone to the main repo (not that Bram is going to look at them). > > > > -Manny > > I disagree. Keep the whole history: > > * the whole history would bloat if had many revisions of binary files, > but that's not the case, so it should not take much more space to > keep the whole history. > * Vim is not that big. At least it's much smaller than Linux where > all history is kept in git. > It's smaller than Linux, therefore it's not too big? It's far too big for the kind of thing it is. It's a plain text editor; a user shouldn't have 50MB worth of useless things (much from *eleven* years ago) hanging around. Especially when 10% of that consists of patches to remedy accidental breakages of "tiny" builds :) * The whole history is useful at least for bisections, or find out when > a piece of code was changed and why. Surely nobody needs 7.0 or 7.1 for bisection anymore. 7.3, OK. *Maybe* 7.2. And anyway, bisection doesn't require that it all be in one repo (unless one believes the ability to "hg bisect" is a requirement of bisecting, which it is not). > or find out when a piece of code was changed and why. Bram can (and should) put older parts under github.com/vim/70 and github.com/vim/71, and then anyone who wants to go spelunking back in time can still do so. It's time to weigh the benefits of keeping ancient code in the main repo against the benefits of a small repo. Keeping the *whole* history benefits a very small number of people on very rare occasions. Making a smaller repo benefits everyone on nearly all occasions, and at most mildly inconveniences the very few people on those very rare occasions. Actually I would be fine with the following: perhaps there can be one giant development repo, and one "distribution" repo that only contains 7.4's history. The latter would get changes to the former merged in (perhaps automatically). While that was impossible with Hg (I think), this should be possible if the switch to git becomes official, right? -Manny -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
