Bug#908678: Testing the filter-branch scripts
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 07:45:59PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 07:34:03AM +0100, Daniel Lange wrote:
> > Am 13.11.18 um 23:09 schrieb Moritz Muehlenhoff:
> > > The current data structure works very well for us and splitting the files
> > > has many downsides.
> >
> > Could you detail what those many downsides are besides the scripts that
> > need to be amended?
>
> Nearly all the tasks of actually editing the data require a look at the complete
> data, e.g. to check whether something was tracked before, whether there's an ITP
> for something, whether something was tracked as NFU in the past and lots more.
Agreed from my point of view as well, history is and contains valuable
data, we do not want to loose that. And even if researching in older
items and made changes takes time. You will even see that with time
passed people started to put more information in the respective done
changes/commits, giving rationales, notes, and additional informations.
And if that all is going to be too much hassle for the salsa
infrastructure we would need/could move the repository to somewhere
else, with the unfortunate downside on contributors from the whole
comunity. But admitely the people regularly contributing is
overviewable.
On the agreement side I fully agree that initial clones of the repo
are a problem. It as well would be intreesting to see what git
upstream would think on that usecase and #913124 raised by Guido.
Regards,
Salvatore
Reply to: