4 ms·
I'm curious why it wouldn't make sense to just think, "Before THIS DATE we just don't care about history anymore". I look at my main project and I'm fairly hap
by justinator 4y ago
I'm curious why it wouldn't make sense to just think, "Before THIS DATE we just don't care about history anymore".
I look at my main project and I'm fairly happy to forget about 90% of the branches I have hanging around and half the lifetime of coding it, and it's just 100k LOC.
(except I haven't. Why haven't I?)
- saagarjha 4y agoIt’s generally useful to have history around when you’re digging through a codebase for bugs or curiosity.
- justinator 4y agoBut where do you draw the line when migrating to a superior source control system isn't possible because of your current source control system? If curiosity is what you're wanting to allow, keep the current source control system on ice, and move everything to the superior one at its current state + a few releases back. Save a decade or two. It seems to me a version (sic!) of technical debt otherwise.
- gsnedders 4y agoI think it's especially valuable to try and be complete when doing a migration from a centralised VCS to a decentralised one; once you manage to migrate the repository once, you can then avoid any necessity to maintain servers for it. In extreme, you could just distribute a tarball of the decentralised VCS, hence all you need is the ability to distribute a tarball, which is a lower bar than maintaining servers for it indefinitely.