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

[Seemant Kulleen <seemantk@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1474 bytes --]

Libraries don't have to be sad.  If the history remains in a CVS repo isn't
that the perfect home for it in the museum of gentoo's history?

We can honor it by keeping it: we needn't  carry it everywhere to remember
it.  :)

Cheers,

seemantk empathic design
http://seemantk.com
On Oct 5, 2014 1:18 AM, "Dirkjan Ochtman" <djc@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dirkjan
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1979 bytes --]