Re: [Gnu-arch-users] inode caching for explicit id's completed

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 09:28, Tom Lord wrote:
> So...er...as I mentioned: aren't the inventory caches enough?   I
> don't think you really need the path field in the signature files.

Didn't know about them, will go and look.

> Well, there you go.  In pristines and revlibs, you have an inventory
> and you need to actually go and stat all of those files --- so there's
> enough information there already to detect
> corruption-by-renaming/deletion of known-good trees.  (Stray adds
> shouldn't count as corruption -- they _should_ just be ignored, I
> think.)

Erm, 6/1. I'm inclined to be anal though, because an added file doesn't
'just happen'.
>     > Anyway... I'm primarily interested in your opinion on the explicit id
>     > support for inode signatures.
> 
> I haven't looked at the code yet.   The pseudocode in your earlier
> message sounded plausible.   
> 
> How do you feel about removing the :path field before I dig into the
> in-depth review?

Removed already, see the leading edge of --inode-sigs--, or the merged
patch in --integration--.

Cheers,
Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part