cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aristedes Maniatis <>
Subject Re: [jira] [Commented] (INFRA-5936) Migrate Apache Cayenne to Git
Date Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:17:33 GMT
I guess I don't understand how having two git repos is useful. How do commits get from the
small one to the 'real' one?

Or are you suggesting that we have the large one purely as an archive which no-one ever looks
at ever again? In which case I don't see the point since we have svn to do exactly that.

The only (very minor) downside I see is that some tools out there (like ohloh) will think
that our project is "young again". Whether that is good or bad, or we even care...


On 26/04/13 10:12am, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> So essentially the question is whether we want 2 Git repos (a smaller active repo and
full history archive), or whether we want to keep the archive in SVN.
> I am fine with the second approach if that helps with the migration. Essentially this
means limiting trunk to 3.0 commits and branches to 3.0 and 3.1. If everyone ok with this,
I will provide some guidance to David, with specific rev numbers and branch names.
> Andrus
> On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <> wrote:
>> On 26/04/13 8:35am, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>> On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Ari Maniatis (JIRA) <> wrote:
>>>>     [
>>>> Ari Maniatis commented on INFRA-5936:
>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>> If the git repository will end up being 6Gb, could we look at reducing the
size of the problem by eliminating some branches or discarding history older than a certain
>>> I was thinking about that too. My current idea is to just create a second repo
for the current work, forking from a point where we switched to Maven and dropped all the
jar dependencies. And keeping the 6GB one for the history.
>> There is no clean way to do that. In fact the thing which stopped me from moving
from svn to git in my work was that git has no way to clone a partial repository.
>> So we could:
>> * discard all branches older than 3.0
>> * discard all commits older than when we started work on 3.0
>> That would drastically reduce the size of the repo and the difficulty of the migration.
And really, how often do we look at blame?
>> Personally I don't really care either way (I still like svn!), but 6Gb will prevent
a lot of people from contributing some small patch.
>> Ari
>> --
>> -------------------------->
>> Aristedes Maniatis
>> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C  5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A

Aristedes Maniatis
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C  5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A

View raw message