From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Marek Subject: Re: RFC: Removing old tags, reducing the git size of -next. Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:29:29 +0100 Message-ID: <4D764B59.1060801@suse.cz> References: <1299039746.4208.28.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20110302165447.f47fd4b2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55428 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755120Ab1CHP3b (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:29:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110302165447.f47fd4b2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Joe Perches , linux-next , LKML , users@kernel.org On 2.3.2011 06:54, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:22:26 -0800 Joe Perches 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. FWIW, I use the following setup for linux-next: [remote "linux-next"] url = git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git fetch = +refs/heads/master:refs/heads/linux-next fetch = +refs/heads/stable:refs/remotes/linux-next/stable tagopt = --no-tags and fetch the next-* tags manually only when I need them. Michal