Hi, Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> skribis:
> On Tue, 02 May 2023 at 09:42, Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.cour...@inria.fr> > wrote: > >>> Somehow, we could tweak ’clone-from-swh’ from (guix git) to use 'flat >>> instead of 'git-bare. However, I am unsure the other tweaks it would >>> require since a Git repository is somehow expected. >> >> Yeah, ‘clone-from-swh’ is really cloning, so it needs ‘git-bare’. >> Generally, in the case of channels, we need a full clone, not just a >> revision. Various bits of the machinery expect the clone: (guix >> describe), (guix channels), and so on. > > Even if the bug on SWH would be fixed, at the rate the Guix repo is > growing, it would be impractical to cook the whole Guix repo. Falling back to SWH to fetch channels is something we expect to be rare, though. > And it appears to me weird when we, most of the time, need a very > restricted set of commits. > > We could imagine to locally create a new repo (git init) and only add > the content of the commit specified by “guix time-machine”. To do that we’d need to say goodbye to the features I mentioned above. > PS: Just some numbers backing the rate of growing: > > $ git log --oneline | wc -l > 114457 > > $ git log --oneline --before=2019-05-01 | wc -l > 43845 > > $ git log --oneline --after=2019-05-01 | wc -l > 70612 > > > 1. We are cooking 43845 commits of the history that are useless because > unreachable with the time-machine. They pre-date the introduction > of the inferiors – yes, we could refine and consider v0.15 instead > of v1.0.0. :-) > > 2. The first commit is from 2012. Over the first 7 years, 38% of the > history had been produced. In less than 4 years, we have produced > 62% of the history! Yeah, that’s cool! > > Basically, from now to less than 5 years, we will generate the same > number of commits as over the past 10 years. Heh, insightful figures! Ludo’.
