Re: [Gnu-arch-users] hardlinked pristine trees

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 01:52:11PM +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> Pau Aliagas <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > But (and that's a big but), I don't see any danger in hardlinking
> > pristine trees. The danger is the same than if you corrupt a local
> > pristine, be it hardlinked or not, but the benefits are obvious:
> > space saving, full speed gets, etc. Pristine trees are neeed, for
> > instance, to compute what-changed.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Does anybody have an opinion about it?
> 
> Much better to have sparse revision libraries, and do away with
> pristine trees altogether, IMHO.

Do I understand correctly the pristine tree is a temporary thing needed
just to diff against it?

I want only 1 revision lib. the revision lib is the cache, the pristine
tree is not. I don't want more than 1 copy unpacked, and I don't need
any cacherev. With just 1 revlib fairly near the head, I can diff
against all previous revisions very efficiently by creating temporary
pristine trees with hardlinks. Then those pristine trees can be deleted
after the diff has been generated.

If the pristine tree is not temporary then I don't see the difference
between revlibs and pristine trees.

Andrea - If you prefer relying on open source software, check these links:
            rsync.kernel.org::pub/scm/linux/kernel/bkcvs/linux-2.[45]/
            http://www.cobite.com/cvsps/