[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Archives vs. categories vs. versions

From: Dimitrie O. Paun
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Archives vs. categories vs. versions
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:11:31 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 10:54:40PM -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 09:56:11AM +1100, address@hidden wrote:
> >
> As far as I know, it is solely for performance. The problem is that 
> after you get 200+ revisions into a single version, you start noticing 
> that some of the algorithms are O(N) (example, checking to see if you 
> have an old revision in your library when the lib is empty causes a 
> round trip for each revision, Cycling your archive breaks this check).

Well, this is a problem I guess. Not so much for development itself,
but rather for places where you want to setup the archive once, and
simply forget about it. I guess none of the caching strategies in
arch avoid this O(n) problem, right?

> I would generally say you get a full archive depending on how much 
> turnover there is of your source, otherwise just put everything into 
> one. I don't really know what that number is. But for a business' 
> repository, it would make sense to try and keep the number low. Though 

And this is what I don't understand: why keep the number low. It
seems that arch works perfectly well across multiple archives, and
there isn't apparent cost to creating them, so why not do it?

> if you really got into arch, everyone would probably have their own 
> archive, and you would just have the main archive as a centralization point.

Right. And speaking of this centralized archive, any best practices
on how to setup? Like naming, location, permissions, etc.


reply via email to

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