Re: [QUESTION] about .git/info/grafts file
- From
- Ryan Anderson <ryan@michonline.com>
- Date
- Jan 20, 2006, 20:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20060120204851.GB19212@mythryan2.michonline.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <43CF97AF.9060300@op5.se>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:44:15PM +0100, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> > The full kernel tree, with history since 1991 or some such, is about 3.2 > GB. It was for this reason that the early history was dropped. I don't > think another drop will be necessary any time soon, since incremental > updates are fairly cheap over git and git+ssh. Only gitk suffers, but > that's just for a short while.
Just to make sure this is corrected, the 3.2GB was for a fully unpacked tree, which is still fairly bad in the current tree.
The historical tree, packed, runs about 266M in a single pack. Admittedly, I still refuse to try to run gitk on it.
Show 7 quoted lines
> >But I'm not saying that it's bad thing to keep > >that history. It just would be nice to allow developpers that don't > >care about old history to get rid of it. > > You could ofcourse create a new repository with the files from the > version you want, but then you'd have a hard time merging the two repos > if you ever want to import the old history.
It's always possible to use a "graft" to tie the history together, and if you really need to merge changes across the boundary, my graft-ripple (in the archives) tool can make it happen, though it does some ... nasty things to the history tree in the process. (It might be useful on a throwaway tree to provide a way to merge, then, from which a set of diffs could be taken and applied back on an un-messy tree.)
-- Ryan Anderson sometimes Pug Majere