Les, disk space isn't the issue for the empty revs. It's any operations
that try to scan or assemble information from the revisions. 5000 empty
"objects" is still a logistical burden, especially if assembling any kind
of change history for the new repository. And since the new repositories
are effectively a rebase of a subset of the code, you don't normally *gain*
anything from having empty revisions for code that is in the other new
repositories. You can't meaninglfully merge content between the new smaller
repositories and the old repo, barring some seriously weird cases, so it's
safer to treat them as completely distinct and not bother to preserve all
the empty revisions.
The "revision numbers are stored in support tickets" is the only reason I
can think of to keep them.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> > Even if the history is considered sacrosanct (and this is often a
> > theological policy, not an engineering one!), an opportunity to reduce
> the
> > size of each reaporitory by discarding deadwood at switchover time
> should be
> > taken seriously.
>
> Those empty revs take what, a couple of dollars worth of disk space
> (OK, x3 or 4 for backups...), vs. how much human time will it take to
> make everyone involved understand that you use one procedure for
> revisions before a certain date, and a different one after, and to get
> diffs between them you have to either check out both copies and use
> local tools or map the rev number from your old reference to the new
> numbering scheme? And then there are likely to be pegged externals
> to pull in components that you'll have to fix even if they stay within
> the same project repo and use relative notation. I'd call not
> unnecessarily changing the history you use a version control system to
> preserve to be 'philosophically correct' as opposed to a theological
> requirement. If your engineering choices were always right the first
> time, you probably wouldn't have all these revisions in the first
> place.
>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell_at_gmail.com
>
Received on 2013-09-12 05:50:23 CEST