> > However, we could rename dead branches to something like attic/<name>. > > Yes, that's sounds better than what we have now. Alternatively, we > could make a "historic" repo clone (like Nathan Bijnens suggests). > nixpkgs-historic? Then we have an option to clean up some less used > branches/tags in the mainline repo. >
+1 on the "historic" (or "archive") clone where we would keep all history. this is usually normal way when working with any git/hg projects repos when they grow to "big" (to big in size of history) and its taking long time to do the initial clone. usually when developing a project you're only interested in last year or two of history at most. it is not that this must be done, but it would definetly not hurt anybody. history is not lost and main development repo becomes "lighter" to work with. -- Rok Garbas - http://www.garbas.si
signature.asc
Description: signature
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
