On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:09 PM, vitalije <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fixing <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/issues/863> #863 <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/issues/863> (serious problems changing branches) today, made me wander if this bug was the only cause for all the troubles with the cache we have had in past. ... > I think that we might get rid of all this different cache names and use the simplest one. It would reduce the size of cache db and most importantly Leo would load faster. I don't (yes) understand the present caching code, nor do I understand why the order of children matters. I would have thought that a sha1 hash of the external file would suffice, assuming that the code uses such a hash. It's fine with me if we change the organization of .leo/db. But that should be part of 5.7.3, not 5.7.2. Does the present caching deal with clone conflicts in the larger outline? Any new scheme should give priority to clones in @<file> nodes (#874 <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/issues/874>). I'll be testing your leoBug863.zip <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/files/1953030/leoBug863.zip> when I can. Probably later today. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
