From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois Romieu Subject: Re: full kernel history, in patchset format Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:08:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20050416150816.GA4943@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> References: <20050416131528.GB19908@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 16 17:06:22 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DMosI-0003Ym-1I for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:06:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262678AbVDPPJ7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:09:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262679AbVDPPJ7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:09:59 -0400 Received: from electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com ([213.41.134.224]:2753 "EHLO fr.zoreil.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262678AbVDPPJ5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:09:57 -0400 Received: from electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by fr.zoreil.com (8.13.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id j3GF8M5T005310; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:08:22 +0200 Received: (from romieu@localhost) by electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j3GF8HWw005309; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:08:17 +0200 To: Ingo Molnar Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050416131528.GB19908@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Organisation: Land of Sunshine Inc. Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar : [...] > the history data starts at 2.4.0 and ends at 2.6.12-rc2. I've included a > script that will apply all the patches in order and will create a > pristine 2.6.12-rc2 tree. 127 weeks of bk-commit mail for the 2.6 branch alone since october 2002 provides more than 44000 messages here. The figures are surprisingly different. > it needed many hours to finish, on a very fast server with tons of RAM, > and it also needed a fair amount of manual work to extract it and to > make it usable, so i guessed others might want to use the end result as > well, to try and generate large GIT repositories from them (or to run > analysis over the patches, etc.). Has anyone already compared the (split/digested) content of the ChangeLog file with the commit messages ? It raises the interesting question of inserting the merge messages/patches in the sequence at the right place but I'd like to know if someone met other issues. -- Ueimor