[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla

From: John Meinel
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:52:48 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)

Dustin Sallings wrote:

On Sep 23, 2004, at 20:40, John Meinel wrote:

Well, if you can do hard-linked source trees, I've found that my 'tla changes' time goes *way* down.

Hmm... I didn't try that one, but it scares me just a bit. I have a fear that some tool I use might end up screwing up the revlib.

Only chmod can screw a revlib and it won't know about it. But if you touch the file, it wakes up and realizes the revlib is corrupt and requests that you remove the offending patch (though only one at a time).

vim & emacs both have configurations for break hardlinks on write. (I use vim)

Yes, it's a problem if you do a lot of chmod, or have lots of scripts that you run on your source directory. I don't. I tend to edit my source tree. But then again, on win32 I'm not daring to --link, and on some of the work machines I develop on an NFS mount and keep a local revlib in /tmp (again I can't hardlink across filesystems.) So I don't use --link, all the time. But when I get the opportunity, I use it. _much_ faster.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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