<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <body> <div dir="auto"> <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div> <div id="aqm-original" style="color: black;">  <div class="aqm-original-body"> <div style="color: black;"> <p style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-family: sans-serif; margin: 8pt 0;">On September 24, 2022 04:04:48 "Filip Gawin" <filip@gawin.net> wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 0.75ex; border-left: 1px solid #808080; padding-left: 0.75ex;"> <br><blockquote type="cite" cite="Yy2v45GclfFG2VrR@maud">> 2. repo is growing large. Amber kinda requires long history, modern<br>> mesa not. This may be good spot to split if cleanup is required.<br><br>mesa absolutely uses long history. there is nothing to clean up. those<br>bytes of disk space are well worth it.<br><br>(Neutral on the other points, I don't work on stuff suported in Amber)</blockquote>I thought here about traces in issues. (Sometimes traces are uploaded onto gitlab by users.) I'm guessing it should be possible to reedit really old closed issues and remove attachments.<br></blockquote> </div> </div>  </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If the fd.o admins are complaining about disk usage, we can take steps to reduce that but it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether amber should get it's own repo. Pulling amber into a separate repo won't reduce disk usage. If anything, it'll slightly increase it but not by an amount that's likely to matter.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Let's stay focused on actual reasons that might matter, like user confusion (if that's actually happening).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">--Jason</div><div dir="auto"><br></div> </div></body> </html>