RE: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: recent changes

[Derek Zhou]

One thing that have frustrate lots of newbies (including me) is the fact that 
to get reasonably good performance in any realistic sized tree, you have to 
have a revision library. So why do we just enforce this policy in the software 
so nobody accidentally say arch sucks?
Derek  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Tai [mailto:address@hidden 
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 1:56 PM
> To: Matthieu Moy; Derek Zhou
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: recent changes
> 
> 
> Yes,  cache reversions every 50th one may be useful but 
> should be done in a smarter manner...  if
> the baz algorithms can be applied in a less disruptive way 
> that would be great...
> 
> --- Matthieu Moy <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > address@hidden (Ludovic Court�s) writes:
> 
> > >> * cacherev every 50 revisions and every tag even within the same
> > >> archive. Disk is cheap
> > >
> > > While I agree this should be the default, I think it should not be
> > > hard-wired.
> > 
> > In particular, cachedrevs for all tags are a bad choice if you
> > microbranch a lot. It does not only cost disk space, it also costs
> > bandwidth: if you have a close ancestor in your revision 
> library, it's
> > cheaper to apply a few changesets to it than to get the cached
> > revision. Bazaar has clever algorithms to chose which full tree
> > revision to start with (a cachedrev, the initial import, or in your
> > revision library), but that's relatively deep changes, I don't think
> > this will ever be merged into tla. 
> > -- 
> > Matthieu
> 
>