Re: Joining historical repository using grafts or replace

> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Dmitry Oksenchuk <oksenchuk89@gmail.com> 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).
>
> This might be a good idea. Did you already test that the small
> repository is really faster than the full repository?

>> Are there any disadvantages of using grafts and replace? Will both of
>> them be supported in future versions of Git?
>
> My opinion is that grafts have no advantage compared to replace refs.
>
> Once you have created your replace refs, they can be managed like
> other git refs, so they are easier to distribute.
>
> Basically if you want to get the full history on a computer you just need to do:
>
> git fetch 'refs/replace/*:refs/replace/*'