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.
Sure. We can export the 2.6.12-rc2 version of the git'ed history tree and start from there. Then the first changeset has a parent, which just lives in a different place. Thats the only difference to your repository, but it would change the sha1 sums of all your changesets. > 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.. We have all the tracking information in SQL and we will post the data base dump soon, so people interested in revision tracking can use this as an information base. > But it's _great_ to have the history in this format, especially since > looking at CVS just reminded me how much I hated it. :) One remark on the tree blob storage format. The binary storage of the sha1sum of the refered object is a PITA for scripting. Converting the ASCII -> binary for the sha1sum comparision should not take much longer than the binary -> ASCII conversion for the file reference. Can this be changed ? tglx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
