[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Aaron Bentley
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:54:40 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040217)

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

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 Bentley
Manager of Information Technology
Panometrics, Inc.

reply via email to

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