On 22 February 2015 at 18:05, Rok Garbas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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.
While I agree that such a history cut-off may be appropriate at some point, I do not think we're there yet. And I did not mean to suggest such a thing. I was just referring to the removal of old and unmerged branches. - Bjørn _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
