[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] sparse revision lirariess instead of ALL?
From: |
Pau Aliagas |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] sparse revision lirariess instead of ALL? |
Date: |
Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:11:55 +0200 (CEST) |
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Pau Aliagas wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean by `spare revision libraries,' but have you
> > read my savannah bug report (and followups) about add-library issues?
> >
> > It's the one that discusses the `--every' and `--until' options:
> >
> > http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_id=5157&group_id=4899
I'm always 'mistypign' :) I meant sparse revision libraries.
I've almost coded it and now I have one doubt:
-should sparse libs be the default?
I think so and I'll explain why:
-you can still add ALL the libraries with a hook, a script or manually, so
no functionality is lost
-you save space and time
-you usually don't need old libraries
-you can choose; now there's no option, you have them all
So I'd vote for a change in the behaviour of library_add: dont add
recursively backwards, just add the requested one, hardlinked to the
closest ancestor, not necessaryly the immedaite ancestor. For me it's a
refinement.
Adding a deleting intermediate revisions manually means that you probably
lose the 100% optimization: so it's now, so would be, no change.
The other option would be to have a command 'my-spare-revision-library'
and act depending of its settings. I personally don't like it as it means
adding YACO (yet another confusing option).
What do you think?
Pau
- [Gnu-arch-users] sparse revision lirariess instead of ALL?,
Pau Aliagas <=