After 2.9.7

[Yue Liu]

On Aug 31, 2015 2:50 AM, "Dmitry Kazakov" <dimula73 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> 1) I'm ok with forking Krita repository. We already depend from quite
few libraries from calligra libs. That is mostly, KoCanvasBase,
KoDocumentBase, flake and pigment.From all four only pigment looks
>>> reusable enough for me to have a separate repo. In our code we hack
quite a lot to adapt flake and document classes for our needs.
>>>
>>> 2) One more benefit of forking to another repository would be that the
size of the repo would become lower (correct me if I'm wrong). Since "Krita
for Cats" manual is still semi-official way of building
>>> Krita on some platforms this is really crucial for many users. Quite a
lot of people still have GPRS or limited internet, so downloading 700MiB
just to try Krita *is* a barrier. Another problem is
>>> translators. Basically, they need to have a full source tree around to
be able to check where the string comes from.
>>
>>
>> The repo size is one reason I'm actually considering to drop all
>> history. Create a fresh new repo with cleaned-up code only and start
>> again from commit 0. I know we check history a lot, but that history is
>> the history of Krita up to Krita 2.9.x, which is in the calligra repo.
>
>
> This will make our life really hard :(
>

For git there is a way to move files from one repo to another repo while
keeping history to only those files. You can do that for Krita split, first
create a branch to strip off office apps code, then create an empty krita
repo, then move all files and their history to the new repo.

This way you make repo smaller but still have krita history.

> --
> Dmitry Kazakov
>
> _______________________________________________
> calligra-devel mailing list
> calligra-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/calligra-devel/attachments/20150831/8f99aecf/attachment.htm>