Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [14-05-2007 13:41]: > On Mon, 14 May 2007, Radoslaw Zielinski wrote: >> Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [14-05-2007 00:55]: [...] >>> Come on, the repo will not magically grow by enormous amounts, >> [...] >> Now (for SPECS): 12k files. >> With new layout: 12k files + 12k directories + 12k CVS/ + 3x12k CVS/*. >> SVN: 12k files + 12k directories + 12k .svn/ +7x12k .svn/* + copies. >> On my (laptop) hardware[1] I see a performance difference. Big enough >> to see it as an issue. > Do you work with the whole repo? > If yes, then how often do you _really_ need to cvs up the whole > thing?
Recently: very rarely. But I do it from time to time.
[...]
>>> 1) files that belong to more than one package, you either have to _know_
>>> the involved packages and keep them synchronized or you will have a mess
>> It's just a couple of packages, isn't it? Only relevant for SourceX,
>> which are fetched from DF anyway. Files stored in VCS (patches, scripts
>> or whatever) are (or should be) named as %{name}*.
> Dream on...
> Why do you thing the repo grew by 200MB after split?
Did it? Well, why?
>>> 2) orphans, we have ~900 files in SOURCES that don't belong to any
>>> package currently
>> I might be guilty of forgetting to remove some of these myself... But
>> then, is it really an issue? If so, a daily or weekly cronjob can fix
>> it, can't it?
> Dream on...
> A ~7 hours cron job effectively killing access to CVS?
Mostly read-only operation would kill the access? Even on a rsynced,
off-line copy? Whoa.
Yes, there are a few issues with this cronjob. All *solvable*, so let's
not get started, alright? ;-)
>>> 3) guesswork in case you work with more packages at once or with the
>>> whole repo - hmm, file adfgasdfgda.patch does belong to what package?
>> Why would you care? It's being looked up the other way: package -> *.patch.
> I care because I have to work with the whole repo.
Can you show the use case?
>>> And those were just everyday, common issues.
>> Honestly: I can't see these as issues. And certainly not as everyday ones.
> Can I assume then that status quo is best for you?
Yes.
--
Radosław Zieliński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgp6acwmcV7wv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
