Re: Git benchmarks at OpenOffice.org wiki

> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:24:24PM CEST, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> > > What might help here is splitting repository into current (e.g. from
> > > OOo 2.0) and historical part,
> >
> > No, I don't want this ;-)
>
> Are you sure? Using the graft mechanism, Git can make this very easy and
> almost transparent for the user - when he clones he gets no history but
> he can use say some simple vendor-provided script to download the
> historical packfile and graft it to the 'current' tree. After that, the
> graft acts completely transparently and it 'seems' like the history
> goes on continuously from OOo prehistory up to the latest commit.

> Besides, in case you discover a year later that the conversion was
> broken in some places etc., you can just fix this, re-run the conversion
> and simply regraft your history to point at the 'new' historical commit,
> without affecting your current development and commit ids at all. For
> this reason alone, I'd seriously consider grafting history separately
> when migrating any non-trivial project from other SCM to Git.
>
> Then again, due to the sheer tree sizes etc., I'm not sure how much
> would throwing the history away actually reduce the packfile size.