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

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:09:21AM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> 
> 
>     > From: Andrea Arcangeli <address@hidden>
> 
>     > > The chief virtue (and also vice) of pristine trees is their location.
>     > > They allocate space addressed in the same subtree as the project tree
>     > > they help.   The virtuous aspect of that is that if you `rm -rf' a
>     > > project tree, that has the side effect of freeing-up local revision
>     > > cache space dedicated to that tree.   In short, revision-cache
> 
>     > Exactly. That was my point about claiming them more "temporary" than
>     > revlibs. However we can't share them across multiple work dirs. I guess
>     > that's the worst part of the story about pristine trees.
> 
> Not obviously immediately important, but: that's not strictly true.
> The search for an appropriate pristine scans not only the current
> project tree, but also it's siblings.  Have a look at
> src/libarch/pristines.c(arch_find_pristine).

cool, so they've no real disavantage. Since sibilings pristine trees are
searched for I believe there's no need to replace pristine trees with
revlibs. However for the people not wanting to using hardlinks, revlibs
probably will work much faster than pristine trees (pristine trees can't
be hardlinked in such case). But if you use hardlinks likely you may
want to still take advantage of the more temporary property of the
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/