| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I was thinking that it might make more sense to just make things |
| 3 |
> really simple and ONLY migrate the active tree into the starting git |
| 4 |
> repository. That is, basically take the rsync tree, remove metadata, |
| 5 |
> and do a git init. (Then follow that up with removing changelogs, |
| 6 |
> cleaning up cvs headers, and so on.) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> A historical migration could be done in parallel and released a few |
| 9 |
> hours later. However, it would not be a contiguous repository. That |
| 10 |
> is, the converted active tree commit would not have any parents. If |
| 11 |
> you wanted to have a contiguous tree you would need to splice in the |
| 12 |
> historical migration with git replace. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think that would be sad. IMO there should be full history to the |
| 15 |
default tree (even if we advocate shallow clones by default). Yes, the |
| 16 |
history might not be perfect; people can splice in an improved history |
| 17 |
later with git replace. I would be disappointed if the git hash for |
| 18 |
the default tree doesn't represent (some version of) the full history. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Cheers, |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Dirkjan |
Archives