Hi Joe, On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:22:26 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgp3SgdFfzGjz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
