On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:39:09PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote: > > > 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. > > This is only theoretically correct. In reality, cacherevs are compressed, > so they are usually more disk friendly then a hard-linked revlib.
I find reality to be roughly the opposite of this. > Besides, a revlib consumes a _huge_ amount of inodes that constitutes a > real problem in many cases (compared to one tarball per 50 revisions). git already proved this is not a real problem. > > We had this thread years ago, and to summarise: > > > > - you want revision library entries for people doing any kind of real > > work with tla > > Disagree. Revision libraries although nice to have are not needed for > real work with tla. Pristines and periodical cacherevs are often enough. Pristines are *horrible*. Cacherevs are too slow. > > - cacherevs are only really interesting to people who want to use > > 'get' > > Cacherevs are helpful with merges not less than with 'get'. Only with those 'merges' that involve 'get' operations. I mostly merge using replay, where they're no use at all. > greedy revlibs on > every developer account is quite expensive, while cacherevs are not. True enough. Also, computers are expensive, while noodles are not. -- .''`. ** 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/
