Mike Auty wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Lance Albertson wrote:
>> What if we took a slightly different angle with this. I'm not sure if
>> this is possible, so correct me if I'm wrong. Most developers don't need
>> history past a year, but having recent history is important. What if we
>> created an archive repo that contains all the history but the main one
>> only contains a years worth? If a developer did want the whole history,
>> they could just graft it onto the live repo.
> 
> Yeah, as far as I'm aware the initial repo can be any length of time (a
> week old, a year old, etc), so that wouldn't pose a problem.
> 
>> Anyways, I think devs should always have history, just not 5 years worth
>> of it.
> 
> True, it's getting it in the first place that's a bit of a strain on the
> ifrastructure...

FWIW, that is my feelings too. I don't need/want history, that is older 
than a year. I would also accept losing all history if it means that we 
can easily move forward and drop CVS. (ChangeLogs are the past history, 
git commit messages are the new history - or something) I brought this 
up to Donnie and his feelings were that if we don't have all the 
history, then we should not even use a VCS.

meh. I'm looking forward to this grafting idea.

-Jeremy