[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] question about greedy library and history

From: David Allouche
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] question about greedy library and history
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 18:27:56 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/

On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 11:16:34AM -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> David Allouche wrote:
> >However, _I_ use non-sparse libraries, and do so for a good reason:
> >that's the only way to ensure optimal hard-linking of the library.
> Okay, good to understand the motivation.  Whether the backbuilder is 
> more or less optimal wrt hard-linking is hard to say.  It will use 
> import revisions for some cases where the old code would use revlibs, 
> but it will also cross tag/archive boundaries when hard-linking.

Do not get me wrong, the old code _did_ allow hardlinks to cross
tag and archive boundaries when building a revlib, didn't it?

> >BTW, I just added a "decimate" command in tlash which deletes 9 over 10
> >revisions from the library idempotently. The idempotence garantees
> >(along with a non-sparse library) that the decimated library is going to
> >be optimally hard-linked.
> e.g. you remove patch-2 through patch-10?  Sounds handy.

Not exactly, it removes everything but base-0, patch-*0, version-0,
versionfix-*0 and the last revision in the library. I'm wondering why
nobody has come up with that before...

> Have you sorted out why vim gets unhappy in tlash?

Actually, I have not even tried to...

In fact I'm already getting frustrated with tlash. I tried to talk 
Rob Weir into releasing his python shell stuff, so I spend less
time in dead-end sh-scripting, but he just ended saying "I'm a wuss,
I'll reimplement all of aba before releasing"...

Maybe I'll give a shot at that vim problem tonight.

                                                            -- ddaa

reply via email to

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