| 1 |
Dnia 2014-10-07, o godz. 10:20:27 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Dnia 2014-10-07, o godz. 09:57:32 |
| 7 |
> > Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> >> > I was thinking of prepending the old history via 'git replace' in |
| 11 |
> >> > the gitweb repo to allow looking back. However, that idea has the |
| 12 |
> >> > downside that users would be confused by having past commits in |
| 13 |
> >> > gitweb yet not in clones. |
| 14 |
> >> > |
| 15 |
> >> > Kent improved my idea suggesting that we use a separate repo for |
| 16 |
> >> > that 'complete history' view. That is, we would have three repos: |
| 17 |
> >> > |
| 18 |
> >> > 1. history.git -- with past CVS history up to conversion, |
| 19 |
> >> > |
| 20 |
> >> > 2. dev.git -- with history starting with conversion, |
| 21 |
> >> > |
| 22 |
> >> > 3. joined-history.git -- dev.git with 'git replace' for |
| 23 |
> >> > history.git, that is the complete history including both pre- and |
| 24 |
> >> > post-conversion commits. |
| 25 |
> >> |
| 26 |
> >> Can we do that without requiring the git replace stuff? E.g. have |
| 27 |
> >> dev.git be a shallow clone of a joined-history.git? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> > No, I don't think we can push to a shallow repo. Additionally, this |
| 30 |
> > brings back all the issues I mentioned in the first mail. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> But dev (= master) and history could be two branches in the same |
| 33 |
> repository? So we wouldn't need three repos? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
You mean 'history' branch enabling 'git replace' or something more |
| 36 |
ugly? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Michał Górny |
Archives