Re: RFC: Removing old tags, reducing the git size of -next.
From: Stephen Rothwell
Date: Wed Mar 02 2011 - 00:55:15 EST
Hi Joe,
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:22:26 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I personally do not find git history to be very useful
> for the next tree. The collected next tree history
> also makes the repository fairly large and unwieldy to
> use on smaller development systems.
Yeah, I have been thinking about this again recently.
> Would it be reasonable to create a separate history tree
> for -next every once in awhile and have say a maximum of
> a few weeks of next history in the current tree?
I could easily have a tree that is historical and contains what the
current linux-next tree contains while also removing old stuff from the
normal linux-next tree (I could push into both each day). The only
connection between the daily releases is the "history" branch which,
frankly, does not serve any purpose and I will remove.
The main thing stopping me from doing this right now is that there are
several git repositories on master.kernel.org that use the linux-next
tree as an alternate. They should not be doing this, but it has been
safe up until now since nothing has ever been removed from the linux-next
tree. If I did the clean up right now, those trees would be severely
broken.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature