On 2.3.2011 06:54, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 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.
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
