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