Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:54:47 +1100 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: RFC: Removing old tags, reducing the git size of -next. |
| |
Hi Joe,
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:22:26 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> 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@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |