I can make some patches so that tla will complain loud if a greedy revlib is not found. Also how about a default greedy revlib in either ~/my-tla-revlib or /tmp/uid-tla-revlib? With a revlib tla is quite usable for project with a medium-large size (<10k files) and that can cover 99% of all free software projects. Those changes are probably tla 1.4 things. Derek
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Tai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 1:12 AM > To: Derek Zhou; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Matthieu Moy > Cc: Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org > Subject: RE: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: recent changes > > Well, Arch 1 may always suck in some way in this regard... I > remember people > complaining about the need to manually specify the use of the > revision libraries... and every 50th > is just a heuristic. Anyway, maybe after the next release we > may then adapt the baz behavior, > with the number of 50 as default but adjustable, and then we > can further explore if even better > algorithms can be applied on top of the Arch 1.x archive formats... > > Based on my understanding, I am afraid performance on large > trees will be a continuous headache > for tla... why, say, tla was not a good choice for the Linux kernel... > > > --- Derek Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One thing that have frustrate lots of newbies (including > me) is the fact that to get reasonably > > good performance in any realistic sized tree, you have to > have a revision library. So why do we > > just enforce this policy in the software so nobody > accidentally say arch sucks? > > Derek > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andy Tai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 1:56 PM > > > To: Matthieu Moy; Derek Zhou > > > Cc: Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org > > > Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: recent changes > > > > > > > > > Yes, cache reversions every 50th one may be useful but > > > should be done in a smarter manner... if > > > the baz algorithms can be applied in a less disruptive way > > > that would be great... > > > > > > --- Matthieu Moy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Court�s) writes: > > > > > > > >> * cacherev every 50 revisions and every tag even > within the same > > > > >> archive. Disk is cheap > > > > > > > > > > While I agree this should be the default, I think it > should not be > > > > > hard-wired. > > > > > > > > In particular, cachedrevs for all tags are a bad choice if you > > > > microbranch a lot. It does not only cost disk space, it > also costs > > > > bandwidth: if you have a close ancestor in your revision > > > library, it's > > > > cheaper to apply a few changesets to it than to get the cached > > > > revision. Bazaar has clever algorithms to chose which full tree > > > > revision to start with (a cachedrev, the initial > import, or in your > > > > revision library), but that's relatively deep changes, > I don't think > > > > this will ever be merged into tla. > > > > -- > > > > Matthieu > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
