On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 06:16:11PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > Caveats: > > * the number 50 is hard coded; it really should be a value that > > the user can customize. > > Before this is viable, it *must* be possible to turn this behaviour > off. On large trees, cacherevs are massively wasteful of space; > revision libraries are often a more efficient solution. > > It depends. If you have 50 small patches that fix typos or so, then > on a large tree this is wastefull.
Or even large changes that only touch half the files - the hardlinking of revision libraries is *really* good most of the time, and cacherevs have nothing similar. We had this thread years ago, and to summarise: - you want revision library entries for people doing any kind of real work with tla - cacherevs are only really interesting to people who want to use 'get', and the pattern of revisions which people want to get can only be predicted by the people managing the project - it's most likely related to your release schedule, not the number of changesets (This is one of those things revc was supposed to solve) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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/
