| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On 01/11/10 04:39, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 6 |
> I'm playing with graft points, and the tree as it stands, with no |
| 7 |
> history (single commit), is a single 66MiB pack. I've included some more |
| 8 |
> numbers for going further back in history: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Approximately 11MiB/month of growth in the packfile. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Is the packfile of the kernel sources an acceptable size? |
| 15 |
> It's presently ~800MiB. If we start with zero or minimal history (6 |
| 16 |
> months maybe). This gives us a fairly small tree... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If we want this to be sustainable in the long term, it would be |
| 19 |
excellent if there were a way to shrink/regraft at a later date, so that |
| 20 |
we can ditch checkins from say > 6 months ago, or when the size exceeds |
| 21 |
a certain amount. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If this is only for devs, then I guess they can do it manually, but if |
| 24 |
we're ever going to contemplate moving to git instead of rsync for |
| 25 |
normal use, then we should think now about whether we can shrink the |
| 26 |
repo automatically without necessarily tossing out their old tree. Do |
| 27 |
we know if that's possible at the moment? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Mike 5:) |
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkzOrmQACgkQu7rWomwgFXrT7QCeOqGfbuVuJEMemjuuUmMUNnNp |
| 34 |
sLMAn28CvvHg74QLh7mIKYDpYjExpKbS |
| 35 |
=Juvc |
| 36 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives