Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin

[Aaron Bentley]

David A. Wheeler wrote:
> address@hidden said:
>
>
> > Path Compression is independent of cygwin, and of NTFS.
> >
> > tla compiles without modification on cygwin, so no need to port it.
> >
> > (Johannes Berg is porting tla/hackerlab to win32, which is a major
> > undertaking.
>
>
> And HOORAY.  I think this is a very important task.
>
>
>
> > The only problem for using it on FAT is that tla depends on "inode"
> > values, and FAT does not have them, NTFS does have a similar thing.
>
>
> If you're accessing a FAT system from say a Linux system,
> Linux _does_ create inode numbers for a FAT system.
> How does it create those?  Does it use locations on the disk
> to create them?  If so, could the same approach be used to
> determine inode numbers (by doing a little mucking)?
>
> Alternatively - can tla back off to a slower/more painful method
> when inode numbers aren't available?
> I didn't see in a search a discussion of WHY & WHEN arch depends so
> strongly on inode numbers; can someone BRIEFLY explain this?

tla keeps track of "inode signatures" in order to detect changes.  These 
signatures include: size, last modification time, inode and device. 
(Miles Bader will remove/has already removed device)

In working directories, inode signatures are used to calculate 
changesets for commits, etc.  In revision libraries and pristine trees, 
they are used to detect corrupt trees.

I think we could live without inode signatures for working directories. 
  It's just an optomization there-- we can diff every file, if it comes 
to that.  But I'd hate to go without inode signatures in libraries, 
because detecting corruption is essential.

Aaron

--
Aaron Bentley
Manager of Information Technology
Panometrics, Inc.