[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110302165447.f47fd4b2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:54:47 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, users@...nel.org
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@...ches.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@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists