[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: Aaron Bentley
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] question about greedy library and history
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:58:45 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040306)

David Allouche wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 12:20:09AM -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:

David Allouche wrote:

On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 11:16:34AM -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:

David Allouche wrote:

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

As far as I can figure it, the old code *did* cross archive boundaries, but only if the revlib contained the immediate ancestor. I guess that way you don't need access to the ancestor archive. That subtlety was lost on me earlier, but of course, it makes a big difference.

Okay, that's good to know.

What is the new rule? If the revlib is non-sparse, under which
circumstances will the the parent revision be built, and under which
circumstances will the cachedrev be used instead (breaking hardlinks)?

In addition to hardlinking in all the cases the current code does, the backbuilder will also hard link if
- there's no closer pristine
- there's no import or cached revision 50 steps closer

implementing aba isn't hard, and it'd probably be shorter in a real programming language.

According to what I was able to extract from Rob, that's already
essentially done, and more. But he feels like he needs a bigger critical
mass of actual features before making a public release. Or maybe he was
just pulling my leg.

Features, smeatures.  Release early, release often.  Make me obsolete.


reply via email to

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