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

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1547 bytes --]

Dnia 2014-10-07, o godz. 10:20:27
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> >>>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Michał Górny wrote:
> 
> > Dnia 2014-10-07, o godz. 09:57:32
> > Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> 
> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> > I was thinking of prepending the old history via 'git replace' in
> >> > the gitweb repo to allow looking back. However, that idea has the
> >> > downside that users would be confused by having past commits in
> >> > gitweb yet not in clones.
> >> >
> >> > Kent improved my idea suggesting that we use a separate repo for
> >> > that 'complete history' view. That is, we would have three repos:
> >> >
> >> > 1. history.git -- with past CVS history up to conversion,
> >> >
> >> > 2. dev.git -- with history starting with conversion,
> >> >
> >> > 3. joined-history.git -- dev.git with 'git replace' for
> >> > history.git, that is the complete history including both pre- and
> >> > post-conversion commits.
> >>
> >> Can we do that without requiring the git replace stuff? E.g. have
> >> dev.git be a shallow clone of a joined-history.git?
> 
> > No, I don't think we can push to a shallow repo. Additionally, this
> > brings back all the issues I mentioned in the first mail.
> 
> But dev (= master) and history could be two branches in the same
> repository? So we wouldn't need three repos?

You mean 'history' branch enabling 'git replace' or something more
ugly?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

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