[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so go
From: |
Andrew Suffield |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:11:23 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 07:44:37AM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> c) the costs of examining the graph are in some places high-enough
> that if we do too much of it, the optimal SPF solution is useless
> because we've spent too much time computing it
>
> >From those reasons, it's not trivially SPF, it's a heuristic search
> whose goal is to approximate SPF in the face of incomplete knowledge
> and with the catch that asking the wrong questions during the
> heuristic makes the heuristic worse than useless. (Perhaps there is a
> meta-problem that reduces to a different instance of SPF, sure...)
Here's a trivial variation that fixes it: if the cost of examining a
branch of the graph is too high, prune that branch (assume its cost
would be infinite).
We can give a trivial definition of "too high" as "neither a local
archive nor an archive which was specified as part of the original
search".
Both of these criteria can be improved upon to make the search produce
better results, but this will _work_ so long as you always cache
tagged revisions - so it's probably a good starting point.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Miles Bader, 2003/09/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good,
Andrew Suffield <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28