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

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>

    > 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.

Hence the suggestion to make a ChangeLog from logs being pruned.

    > 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?

Somewhat but consider the timescales.

Supposing we put in such a hack.  We'll still be living with it 3, 5,
and 10 years hence.   At what timescale will the file system
bogosities either become fixed or become immaterial?


    > [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).]

Yay, it's almost 1980-something again.


-t