Subject: Re: RFC: Removing old tags, reducing the git size of -next.

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:54:47 +1100

Hi Joe,

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:22:26 -0800 Joe Perches <[email-masked]> 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                    [email-masked]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/