Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 10:22:14 -0600 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Version Resolution? Message-ID: <l03110701b0a0a3722b14@[208.2.87.4]> In-Reply-To: <199711251530.IAA27130@mt.sri.com> References: <l03110707b0a090dacca7@[208.2.87.4]> <l03110703b09f8a1710e6@[208.2.87.4]> <l03110700b09e72675ae9@[208.2.87.4]> <199711240216.CAA28304@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> <199711240504.WAA22051@mt.sri.com> <199711241922.UAA21949@bitbox.follo.net> <199711242223.PAA24374@mt.sri.com> <l03110707b0a090dacca7@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 9:30 AM -0600 11/25/97, Nate Williams wrote: >> Perhaps we could simply start a new tree periodically. Those who NEED >> the old stuff could refer to the archived version (on a CD?). > >You obviously don't understand the role of CVS/SCM solutions, do you? I >often (every 2-3 mos.) go look back through very old versions looking >for hints to new fixes. Starting over would be absolutely *silly*, >since the disk savings are insignificant compared to the keeping of the >history. Heck, if we *could* do it, it would have been nice to have >kept the FreeBSD 1.X tree around publically, but that's not possible for >legal reasons, but because of it we lost many fixes. Some have >subsequently been brought over, but some are probably still in the tree >that have been missed unfortunately. :( > >> Particularly with the various tree reorganizations, there is IMHO too much >> useless material that does not need to continue to be propogated everywhere >> ALL the time. > >They are propogated *once*, and never again. Throwing out all the >history because there is 5% wastage in the tree is *way* too much >overkill, and shows a lack of understanding about software development. Perhaps YOU do not understand. I have no doubt that YOU may reference old material with reasonable frequency. But, just because you do so does not mean that the majority do so. It seems that just because a few of you find something useful, you think that EVERYONE should. The truth of the matter is that there are far more users who are interested in only the recent history. They seldom, if ever, look at the details of the old changes. If you offload all the old changes, I think that you will find that it is much more than 5%. Just compare the size of the cvs tree to the current source tree. -rw-r--r-- 1 library library 95358150 Nov 9 09:46 cvs-cur/cvs-cur.3800xEmpty.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 library library 38404928 Oct 20 04:09 src-cur/src-cur.3100xEmpty.gz I don't think that you can explain the difference in just cvs header overhead + 5%. >Heck, if we *could* do it, it would have been nice to have >kept the FreeBSD 1.X tree around publically Keeping it around is not the same as keeping it on everyone's hard disk. I'm not advocating that we permanently lose any detail. I am simply advocating that it is not necessary for EVERYONE to keep it in their active cache. In fact, keeping the old stuff in an unchanging (read-only) archive is much safer than having it all copied every time there is a new change to a file. Take your blinders off. FreeBSD has grown to be more than just the hardcore developers. And there is more than one way to skin the cat. Richard Wackerbarth
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03110701b0a0a3722b14>