www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grzegorz Kossakowski <gkossakow...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Best Practices so far?
Date Fri, 02 May 2008 12:36:36 GMT
Santiago Gala pisze:
> I guess it is reasonable, and the whole generated repo can be bzipped
> and copied or cloned and git-svn gets to reconstruct the history without
> hitting the server (I think).

Not sure what you meant here. Do you want to say that you are going to ask infra people for
snapshot of svn repository and let git-svn to do its work offline? (that's how I read this)

> Even less than monthly, if there is an "official" clone to be cloned.
> Not sure how well this works, but I think the first "git svn fetch"
> after a "git clone" reconstructs the history using the tags in commits,
> not hitting the server until the end of it (not sure about it).

Yes, if there is any significant interest then we could think about sharing "official" clone.
Cocoon whole repository would be about 0.5GB (or less) of size so even putting it into public-html

of p.a.o account shouldn't be a problem.

> For me being able to browse the whole history while offline or on slow
> cellular is useful, because expresses quite well intent of changes in
> directories or files. Even when online, most operations are blazingly
> fast, faster than anything using history. And the working copies are
> typically larger than the whole git repo.

Quick browsing/searching is actually the main reason for me to choose Git. Svn fails miserably
this regard but as loon as I have my own Git repository copy I'm fine with central repository
as svn. I understand arguments on having single, central repository but I would like to remind
of us that Git is rather flexible and can work well cooperating with svn.

Grzegorz Kossakowski

View raw message