From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: full kernel history, in patchset format Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:31:36 +1000 Message-ID: <1113780698.11910.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20050416131528.GB19908@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ingo Molnar , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 18 01:28:27 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DNJBf-0005y1-Gd for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:28:23 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261553AbVDQXcK (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:32:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261554AbVDQXcK (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:32:10 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:49096 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261553AbVDQXcA (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:32:00 -0400 Received: from [150.203.247.9] (helo=[172.24.3.18]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DNJF6-0003Jm-OP; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:31:59 +0100 To: Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 (2.2.1.1-2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 10:04 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So I'd _almost_ suggest just starting from a clean slate after all. > Keeping the old history around, of course, but not necessarily putting it > into git now. It would just force everybody who is getting used to git in > the first place to work with a 3GB archive from day one, rather than > getting into it a bit more gradually. > > What do people think? I'm not so much worried about the data itself: the > git architecture is _so_ damn simple that now that the size estimate has > been confirmed, that I don't think it would be a problem per se to put > 3.2GB into the archive. But it will bog down "rsync" horribly, so it will > actually hurt synchronization untill somebody writes the rev-tree-like > stuff to communicate changes more efficiently.. Note that any given copy of a tree doesn't _need_ to keep all the history back the beginning of time. It's OK if the oldest commit object in your tree actually refers back to a parent which doesn't exist locally. I can well imagine that some people will want to keep their trees pruned to keep only a few weeks of history, while other copies of the tree will keep everything. However, if we _don't_ base our current work on an existing import of the kernel, then we don't retain that option. We can't just change the 'parent' field of your 2.6.12-rc2 import, without changing the sha1 hash of _everything_ that happens thereafter. So I'd say we should take Thomas' import, and base new work on that -- but then possibly leave out the older objects from the 'working' repository which everyone is rsyncing from; just make them available in a 'linux-history.git' object database elsewhere. -- dwmw2