[ On Thursday, March 2, 2000 at 09:51:25 (-0500), Noel L Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: removing the need for "cvs add file" to contact the server....
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 03/01/2000 09:45:14 PM
> >
> >NO, it must *NOT*! There is a very very essential optimisation in CVS
> >which depends critically on this!
>
> Optimisations are NOT *necessary*.
Where's the word "necessary" above!?!? I said the optimisation is
essential, and most people who would probably agree that it is.
> "cvs add empty-hier" must act the same as
> "touch empty-hier/file; cvs add empty-hier; cvs rm empty-hier". What don't you
> understand about this?
What I don't understand is why you're quibbling about this.
If you read the proposal you will be able to discover the details of
what differences might happen in the above examples *within* the
workspace where they are performed.
In the end the final result, w.r.t. the repository, which is all that
really counts, will be identical.
I.e. the functional difference of performing the optimisation and not
doing so are nil. The optimisation is "free" w.r.t. to functionality.
The end result continues to operate correctly and completely. The
differences you might see in the workspace caused by the optimisation
are not your concern -- they are supposed to be invisible too. You are
not allowed to play with CVS' administrative files -- they are only for
the use of CVS.
> You cannot, however, say that "cvs add", which affects only the local directory,
> should have an "optimisation" that makes it behave differently from an
> equivalent set of commands. Furthermore, the "optimisitation" causes more disk
> processing than if it didn't exist. Here's the (improved) pseudo-code:
Your example shows that you do not seem to have a clue about what
the otimisation I'm talking about is.
Indeed perhaps you should ponder for a while on the idea that performing
an optimisation does itself often require extra effort but that The
optimisation itself will save future effort, perhaps many times over.
> Now, this is the second time I've posted these algorithms.
As I said before all you have shown is how much extra effort is required
to create the optimisation I'm talking about. The actual optimisation
itself does not take effect until future operations are performed in the
workspace, and indeed because its savings will be repeated for every
subsequent recursive operation performed within that workspace the
potential savings are several orders of *magnitude* larger than the
costs you've shown.
The difference between performing the optimisation and not is perhaps
the difference between having a viable and usable tool and one that is
just too costly to use in those circumstances where the optimisation
applies. I.e. this optimisation is essential.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
