[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Are pristine trees really dead?

From: Tom Lord
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Are pristine trees really dead?
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:53:27 -0800 (PST)

    > From: Pau Aliagas <address@hidden>

    > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Lord wrote:

    > >     > And once this is in place:
    > >     > -kill all [in-tree] pristine-trees code

    > > No way.   Make it harder to invoke by accident, sure, but it has the
    > > virtue of keeping the disk-space-mgt. problem very simple for some
    > > kinds of application.

    > Tom, I know it's a lot hell of code, 

I admit that tla has become too large (~57K LOC in libarch) but I'm
not so sure than any one component of it counts as a hell of a lot of

    > but you shouldn't feel too attached to it anymore. If they are
    > not needed, they are better off for all purposes. It's already
    > difficult to explain what all the available caches (revlibs,
    > cachedrevs) are to keep a useless one (pristines).

I don't think it's useless though I admit it's at this point a mostly
theoretical belief.  I think they'll remain particularly useful for
some kinds of automated process.

    > I'm all for killing them from the code too unless you are totally opposed 
    > to it (and have good reasons to convince me ;) I volunteer to rip them 
    > from the code if you accept it.

I don't think I would.

I will accept (and would prefer to review designs-for before code-for)
setting up default rev-libs automatically, changing the default to
`get', finer-grain control over greediness, and so forth.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]