Karl Fogel wrote on Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 12:32:38 -0600: > On 08 Mar 2022, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Karl Fogel wrote on Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 13:44:03 -0600: > > > And in the absence of fancy cross-network common-prefix detection > > > code that we're not going to write, this would just be > > > cost-shifting anyway. Whatever commit-time improvement one would > > > gain from having the pristine locally would be offset by the extra > > > time spent fetching the pristine to make that commit-time > > > improvement possible. > > > > What assumptions is this conclusion valid under? It seems to this > > conclusion assumes, at least, that the uplink and downlink bandwidths > > are equal and that the pristine will be needed exactly once (i.e., > > a hydrate-commit-dehydrate sequence). > > I was assuming up and down speeds are roughly the same, yes. > > Hmm, I don't see where I was assuming that the pristine would be needed > exactly once, though. Once the user has a local pristine (by whatever > means),
To be clear, we're only talking about pristines that libsvn_wc knows about, right? As opposed to Alice running «svn cat iota@BASE» and saving the output somewhere. > if she wants to keep that local pristine after committing its > corresponding working file, then she could do so or not do so, depending on > whether she wants to continue paying the local storage cost for it. How would Alice keep iota's pristine after committing iota? «svn commit iota» deletes iota's pristine. Cheers, Daniel
