| 1 |
Libraries don't have to be sad. If the history remains in a CVS repo isn't |
| 2 |
that the perfect home for it in the museum of gentoo's history? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
We can honor it by keeping it: we needn't carry it everywhere to remember |
| 5 |
it. :) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Cheers, |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
seemantk empathic design |
| 10 |
http://seemantk.com |
| 11 |
On Oct 5, 2014 1:18 AM, "Dirkjan Ochtman" <djc@g.o> wrote: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 14 |
> > I was thinking that it might make more sense to just make things |
| 15 |
> > really simple and ONLY migrate the active tree into the starting git |
| 16 |
> > repository. That is, basically take the rsync tree, remove metadata, |
| 17 |
> > and do a git init. (Then follow that up with removing changelogs, |
| 18 |
> > cleaning up cvs headers, and so on.) |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > A historical migration could be done in parallel and released a few |
| 21 |
> > hours later. However, it would not be a contiguous repository. That |
| 22 |
> > is, the converted active tree commit would not have any parents. If |
| 23 |
> > you wanted to have a contiguous tree you would need to splice in the |
| 24 |
> > historical migration with git replace. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I think that would be sad. IMO there should be full history to the |
| 27 |
> default tree (even if we advocate shallow clones by default). Yes, the |
| 28 |
> history might not be perfect; people can splice in an improved history |
| 29 |
> later with git replace. I would be disappointed if the git hash for |
| 30 |
> the default tree doesn't represent (some version of) the full history. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Cheers, |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Dirkjan |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> |
Archives