> Disagree. Revision libraries although nice to have are not needed for
> real work with tla. Pristines and periodical cacherevs are often enough.
Why settle with "often enough" when you can have revision-libraries?
I really wish tla stopped supporting pristines and just forced the use of
a greedy revlib (which would be setup automatically in a default location,
if needed).
Yes the implementation of revlibs could be improved as well, but tla without
revlibs is simply too painful to use in too many cases.
Now, that doesn't mean cacherevs are unnecessary. The two are largely
orthogonal. But, yes, having a revlib does change the use of cacherevs.
They make it possible to focus on having just at most one cacherev per
version, covering the latest revision (or nearby).
Stefan
_______________________________________________
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/
