On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 06:39:56PM +0300, Dmitry Oksenchuk wrote: > We're in the middle of conversion of a large CVS repository (20 > years, 70K commits, 1K branches, 10K tags) to Git and considering > two separate Git repositories: "historical" with CVS history and > "working" created without history from heads of active branches (10 > active branches). This allows us to have small fast "working" > repository for developers who don't want to have full history > locally and ability to rewrite history in "historical" repository > (for example, to add parents to merge commits or to fix conversion > mistakes) without affecting commit hashes in "working" repository > (the hashes can be stored in bug tracker or in the code). A number of projects have done something like this (e.g. Linux). Modern Gits have good support for shallow repositories though, so I'd just make one full repository and leave it to developers to decide how deep they want their local copy to be. Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature