From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17521F404; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 17:08:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 17:08:48 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: meta@public-inbox.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] TODO: notes about v2 format for giant archives Message-ID: <20180208170848.GC30815@starla> References: <20180116223616.GA18470@80x24.org> <20180208030951.GA10896@dcvr> <20180208040546.GA22174@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180208040546.GA22174@gmail.com> List-Id: Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:09:51AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > The other thing is I think we can support is subsystem lists > > ({netdev,fsdevel,stable}@vger) in the SAME git repo(s) with a > > different head for each list. That could make subsystem lists > > cheaper to archive since there's a lot of overlap with the main > > list. > > Hmm... that's a pretty cool idea, but I wonder if people would find it > annoying to have to pull all the lkml-related objects if all they care > about are messages from, say, netdev. For archiving purposes I think it > would be great, but I'm less sure about UX impacts. Good point. It would be great from a the perspective of somebody who wants to read and store all the mail; but it might also be bad for people who only want a list subset. Wouldn't be good for pack reuse on the server side, either.