[Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch-log sizes

[Miles Bader]

Certainly filesystems shouldn't waste space like that, but (as I argued in
previous .arch-ids threads), in many cases people don't have much choice
what filesystem they use, and it will be a long time before things are
fixed on the filesystem side universally enough to affect the bulk of
users.  People will start complaining about arch's disk usage much sooner
than that...

As for patch-log pruning, that's certainly practical in some respects
(probably not much call for merging with 5-year-old branches), but it
would be rather nice to be able to keep the old patch-logs -- if nothing
else it's _interesting_ to read old patch-logs and see what was going on
at the start of a project.

Would it be practical to allow some sort of compacted patch-log storage
for sets of old patch-logs, e.g., a .tar.gz file, managed via explicit
user commands?

[BTW, the disk-space issues with tla prompted to use reiserfs3 for my main
partition when I recently built a new system, and so far it's working out
very well -- it seems to be much more space efficient, and actually feels
a lot faster as well (than ext3, which I previously used).]

-Miles
-- 
.Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.