On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Tim Landscheidt <t...@tim-landscheidt.de> wrote:
> (anonymous) wrote: > > >> I don't like this idea, for the same reasons that other have already > >> given. Grafting histories with git-replace might be viable, but it'd > still > >> be clunky and non-intuitive. > > > Ok, fair enough. Everyone's made some really good points so let's drop > the > > idea of dropping our history. > > > However I think we should continue to discuss ways to contain the repo > size > > going forward. That, combined with some aggressive repacking and dropping > > of refs/changes/* (when we move to Phabricator) should help get it under > > control. > > > [...] > > Just to clarify: refs/changes/* = Gerrit patchsets (minus > the ones referenced as submitted changes)? If so, sure, > they're only scratchpads, but on the other hand they should- > n't affect the size of a default clone that just pulls in > the parents of master's HEAD? > Right. That's less of a cloning problem as it's a problem on the remote and slows down operations on *that* repo. -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
