[Gnu-arch-users] Re: hardlinked pristine trees

[Pau Aliagas]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 01:52:11PM +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote:

> > Much better to have sparse revision libraries, and do away with
> > pristine trees altogether, IMHO.

Please test sparse revision libraries, have a look at the shared inodes 
and report any bugs. As it uses the well tested functions of libarch, it 
should rock.

> Do I understand correctly the pristine tree is a temporary thing needed
> just to diff against it?
> 
> I want only 1 revision lib. the revision lib is the cache, the pristine
> tree is not. I don't want more than 1 copy unpacked, and I don't need
> any cacherev. With just 1 revlib fairly near the head, I can diff
> against all previous revisions very efficiently by creating temporary
> pristine trees with hardlinks. Then those pristine trees can be deleted
> after the diff has been generated.
> 
> If the pristine tree is not temporary then I don't see the difference
> between revlibs and pristine trees.

Neither do I.

If Tom would enlighten me on how to do away without pristine trees, I'd do 
my best to farewell them. It sounds better than losing time in hardlinking 
them, if possible.

Pau