[Top][All Lists]

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

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: sparse libs and merge fest fun

From: Miles Bader
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: sparse libs and merge fest fun
Date: 14 Nov 2003 17:09:09 +0900

Pau Aliagas <address@hidden> writes:
> I think that the default behaviour should be to build sparse revisions.  
> People are usually less interested in older revisions IMHO.

I agree.

Of course I think the best interface is the one I suggested in my
savannah bug report:

  * default is only the one rev

  * --every=N option to allow adding `every N' revisions; the old
    behavior is N == 1.  One nuance is that I think it should decide
    _which_ options to add based on the patch number, i.e., add a given
    revision in the range if (P % N) == 0, where P is the patch number,
    so that they remain the same over time (as long as N is the same).

  * --until says that it's OK _not_ to add the specified revision (i.e.,
    it's a boundary, not an explicit request); together with --every,
    this would make it simple to automatically maintain a certain
    frequency of revision entries, just by periodically doing `--every N
    --until LATEST-REV' [BTW, that reminds me, it would be nice to have
    a tla tree-revision command to match tree-version -- of course it's
    simple enough to do `tla logs -f | tail -1', but still...]

> I can imagine someone having all the tla libraries being added recursively
> or, by the same reasoning, the kernel revisions, looking at the I/O fest 
> and running out of space.

Yes, it's happened to me several times ... :-)

Is it true that nothing can be known?  If so how do we know this?  -Woody Allen

reply via email to

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