Re: full kernel history, in patchset format
- From
- Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>
- Date
- Apr 16, 2005, 19:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20050416191312.GT9461@lug-owl.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504160953310.7211@ppc970.osdl.org>
On Sat, 2005-04-16 10:04:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote in message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504160953310.7211@ppc970.osdl.org>:
Show 10 quoted lines
> 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.. > > IOW, it smells to me like we don't have the infrastructure to really work > with 3GB archives, and that if we start from scratch (2.6.12-rc2), we can > build up the infrastructure in parallell with starting to really need it.
3GB is quite some data, but I'd accept and prefer to download it from somewhere. I think that it's worth it.
I accept that there are people out there which would love to get a smaller archive, but at least most developers that would actually use it for day-to-day work *do* have the bandwidth to download it. Maybe we'd also prepare (from time to time) bzip'ed tarballs, which I expect to be a tad smaller.
MfG, JBG
-- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 _ O _ "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));