[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] archive storage format comments on the size

From: Tom Lord
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] archive storage format comments on the size
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:09:44 -0700 (PDT)

    > From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>

    > On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 02:15:50PM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
    > > Patch-logs do not have to retain every entry from all of the history
    > > of a tree.   They need only retain a subset for the "active region" of
    > > history.   (In those rare cases where you need to start merging from
    > > very old work, if your logs have been pruned since then, sync-tree is
    > > your friend.)

    > Anyone have guidelines on patch-log pruning, BTW?  Maybe `everything older
    > than a year and not in the current archive, but keep base-0 tag logs'?

No.   It's a bit speculative for me, having only done it once so far
and not needed to go back.

Obviously, for "active versions" -- things you might want to merge to
or from -- keep those entirely.

Inactive versions can be discarded entirely -- although it might be
desirable to keep even the inactive portions of what you consider to
be your `mainline' pedigree.

I like to make ChangeLogs for various versions before doing this so
that, in principle, less information is lost.

Is it desirable to add a mechanism that records "gone but not
forgotten" logs?   Perhaps so.... but it's tricky (supposing, for
example, that I later do something that would revert and remove some
of those logs if they were still around).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]