1 |
Mike Auty wrote: |
2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Lance Albertson wrote: |
6 |
>> What if we took a slightly different angle with this. I'm not sure if |
7 |
>> this is possible, so correct me if I'm wrong. Most developers don't need |
8 |
>> history past a year, but having recent history is important. What if we |
9 |
>> created an archive repo that contains all the history but the main one |
10 |
>> only contains a years worth? If a developer did want the whole history, |
11 |
>> they could just graft it onto the live repo. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Yeah, as far as I'm aware the initial repo can be any length of time (a |
14 |
> week old, a year old, etc), so that wouldn't pose a problem. |
15 |
> |
16 |
>> Anyways, I think devs should always have history, just not 5 years worth |
17 |
>> of it. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> True, it's getting it in the first place that's a bit of a strain on the |
20 |
> ifrastructure... |
21 |
|
22 |
FWIW, that is my feelings too. I don't need/want history, that is older |
23 |
than a year. I would also accept losing all history if it means that we |
24 |
can easily move forward and drop CVS. (ChangeLogs are the past history, |
25 |
git commit messages are the new history - or something) I brought this |
26 |
up to Donnie and his feelings were that if we don't have all the |
27 |
history, then we should not even use a VCS. |
28 |
|
29 |
meh. I'm looking forward to this grafting idea. |
30 |
|
31 |
-Jeremy |