Certainly this can be done. It will require at least 3 to 5 times the disk
space during the rebuild that the final repository uses, and it will be
time-consuming to rebuild it as new releases are found. Which is why we
want to minimize the amount of rebuilding that goes on, as in my original
proposal. (Maybe you have that much disk space and CPU cycles to donate,
but I suspect nobody else does.)
Mind you, I'm not against the use of BitKeeper for the Linux source
repository --- I just think it's not appropriate for this task at the
present time, kind of like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. It might
(heck, would) be worth merging the historical CVS tree into the
BitKeeper-based current development tree once we have all the releases we
know about (or are likely to find), but I'm not sure it's worth the effort
to try to build a proper tree from it until we *can* build a proper tree
from the historical releases. Until then, the historical tree could be made
available without requiring quite as much maintenance effort.
BTW, was anyone else somewhat shocked to discover that apparently nobody has
a copy of what was then described by some as the "first really usable Linux
kernel", namely 0.99.14? I may go rooting through my ancient backup tapes
(if they haven't succombed to bitrot) over the weekend and see if I have an
0.99.14 tree around still.
-- brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu carnegie mellon / electrical and computer engineering KF8NH Kiss my bits, Billy-boy.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/