> You mean apply just the part of the changesets that touches the file
> you're interested in?
Yes.
> I'm not sure there is so much to gain by doing so. First because you
> still have to extract the latest cached revision and this can take time,
> even if you ask `tar' to just extract a single file;
Obviously, I wouldn't want to have *only* this "single-file at a time".
Sometimes the whole tree is better. But assuming you have some
full-tree revision in your revlib, it shouldn't be that bad.
Of course, the management of cached revisions is another part of tla that
makes it slow. Many other systems keep the equivalent of a tla cacherev for
the latest revision. AFAICT, assuming you have a working backpatcher, the
latest rev is the only one for which you really want a cacherev (for those
people doing a `get' or an update from a much older revision). For older
revs, a cacherev isn't that important since older revs are used less often.
> second because you still have to fetch and unpack all the subsequent
> changesets as you mentioned.
Actually, if you look at the `log' files first, you can skip downloading all
the changesets which do not affect the file. And as mentioned, assuming you
have a changeset-cache, the download shouldn't be that significant.
Currently, I see most of the time spent doing the "patching" part rather
than the downloading. Also, the download speed doesn't matter when your
changsets are local, and with mirroring (or with a changeset cache that you
fill eagerly, maybe via a cron-job) you can always make sure the changesets
are local, so it's not nearly as important.
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/
