1 |
Dnia 2014-10-06, o godz. 07:48:26 |
2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> napisał(a): |
3 |
|
4 |
> >>>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2014, Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > Libraries don't have to be sad. If the history remains in a CVS |
7 |
> > repo isn't that the perfect home for it in the museum of gentoo's |
8 |
> > history? |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Having the complete history in a single repository would be much |
11 |
> preferable, even if that history is not perfect. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> It's annoying if you search for the point when some change was |
14 |
> performed, only to find that the repo's history doesn't reach back |
15 |
> that far. I've had this issue e.g. with the Portage repository whose |
16 |
> history was cut off at some point. Having to change tools (from git to |
17 |
> cvs) in addition doesn't make it better. |
18 |
|
19 |
I was thinking of prepending the old history via 'git replace' in |
20 |
the gitweb repo to allow looking back. However, that idea has |
21 |
the downside that users would be confused by having past commits in |
22 |
gitweb yet not in clones. |
23 |
|
24 |
Kent improved my idea suggesting that we use a separate repo for that |
25 |
'complete history' view. That is, we would have three repos: |
26 |
|
27 |
1. history.git -- with past CVS history up to conversion, |
28 |
|
29 |
2. dev.git -- with history starting with conversion, |
30 |
|
31 |
3. joined-history.git -- dev.git with 'git replace' for history.git, |
32 |
that is the complete history including both pre- and post-conversion |
33 |
commits. |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Best regards, |
38 |
Michał Górny |