On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 15:15:48 -0500, John Meinel wrote:
I've seen several messages about pruning patch logs in the past, and now
that I have some development work that has > 100 logs, I'm thinking
That's not that many. The branches where pruning was done usualy had an
order more.
about at least learning more about pruning. I haven't found anything on
the wiki, and only mentions of it on the mailing list...
Every branch carries around all of the patch-logs of everything that it
has been merged with. It is my understanding that this is what allows
star-merge to be so intelligent. When combined with stuff like
sync-tree, you can get star-merge to do almost exactly the right thing
with little effort.
You can only prune logs for branches/version that are no longer used,
thus no new changes will be commited there that you may want to merge.
Old versions, old archives after rotation and such.
So what I'm hoping to get is some sort of best practices for what should
be pruned versus what is kept. I'm worried that I'll lose a lot of what
I like about star-merge if I remove patch-logs.
My gut feeling is that unless it is really important, I shouldn't prune
any patch logs, and just live with the list getting longer and longer.
Right.
Except one day it will become important, as the logs will get huge. With
hundreds of patchlogs you are not just there yet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec
<address@hidden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/