| 1 |
On 10/05/2014 10:18 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I was thinking that it might make more sense to just make things |
| 5 |
>> really simple and ONLY migrate the active tree into the starting |
| 6 |
>> git repository. That is, basically take the rsync tree, remove |
| 7 |
>> metadata, and do a git init. (Then follow that up with removing |
| 8 |
>> changelogs, cleaning up cvs headers, and so on.) |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> A historical migration could be done in parallel and released a |
| 11 |
>> few hours later. However, it would not be a contiguous |
| 12 |
>> repository. That is, the converted active tree commit would not |
| 13 |
>> have any parents. If you wanted to have a contiguous tree you |
| 14 |
>> would need to splice in the historical migration with git |
| 15 |
>> replace. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I think that would be sad. IMO there should be full history to the |
| 18 |
> default tree (even if we advocate shallow clones by default). Yes, |
| 19 |
> the history might not be perfect; people can splice in an improved |
| 20 |
> history later with git replace. I would be disappointed if the git |
| 21 |
> hash for the default tree doesn't represent (some version of) the |
| 22 |
> full history. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
We've been chasing the dream of perfect git migration for a few years |
| 26 |
now without a definite result. It's time to make compromises unless |
| 27 |
you want to stick with a tool from the '80s for the rest of your |
| 28 |
gentoo life. |
Archives