Re: [gentoo-project] Council / Git Migration Agenda

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1742 bytes --]

Dnia 2014-10-05, o godz. 10:18:21
Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

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

I see two issues with this:

1. this will make the initial repo huge (~1.5G) and therefore hard to
mirror. GitHub has a 'soft' limit of 1G. Other mirror providers may
also be unhappy given the perspective of 1.5G and growing, compared to
70M and growing with potential cutoff in future.

2. Replacing the history with a better one would still keep the old
commits. That is, after we fix the history properly, the repo grows
another 1.5G, while the now-unused old 1.5G still needs to be kept.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]