[Gnu-arch-users] sparse revision lirariess instead of ALL?

[Pau Aliagas]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Pau Aliagas wrote:

> > I'm not sure what you mean by `spare revision libraries,' but have you
> > read my savannah bug report (and followups) about add-library issues?
> > 
> > It's the one that discusses the `--every' and `--until' options:
> > 
> >   http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_id=5157&group_id=4899

I'm always 'mistypign' :) I meant sparse revision libraries.

I've almost coded it and now I have one doubt:
-should sparse libs be the default?

I think so and I'll explain why:
-you can still add ALL the libraries with a hook, a script or manually, so 
 no functionality is lost
-you save space and time
-you usually don't need old libraries
-you can choose; now there's no option, you have them all

So I'd vote for a change in the behaviour of library_add: dont add
recursively backwards, just add the requested one, hardlinked to the
closest ancestor, not necessaryly the immedaite ancestor. For me it's a 
refinement.

Adding a deleting intermediate revisions manually means that you probably 
lose the 100% optimization: so it's now, so would be, no change.

The other option would be to have a command 'my-spare-revision-library'  
and act depending of its settings. I personally don't like it as it means
adding YACO (yet another confusing option).

What do you think?

Pau