On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:04:39 -0500, Aaron Bentley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The library-add algorithm prefers to use library revisions, and will > only use cacherevs when > - there's no ancestor revision in the library or > - building from the ancestor would invove crossing an archive boundary
Thanks, that was the hint I was missing. The library was "almost" empty. I nuked it completely and now it's behaving as expected. The strategy you describe for baz 1.3 (and that I've seen mentioned in other threads) seems a more scalable approach for large projects. I have to confess that multi-GB libraries for a project that is ~50MB of untarred source seemed a but much. I think I now understand why the emphasis on "rolling" your archive periodically (yearly), as each of those archive switches limits how far back library reconstruction goes. I rather use cacherevs. cheers, martin _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
