Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: in-tree pristines fatally wounded (merge-fest etc)

[Mark Thomas]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Tom Lord wrote:

> That, said, though -- it's probably a needlessly complicated
> heuristic.  All that "counting up links" would be fairly expensive and
> it isn't a precise way to measure the "demand" for a given revision.
>
> So, perhaps it would be better to ignore the link counts and, instead,
> whenever a library revision is used for some purpose, touch a
> timestamp file in the library -- then (within the constraint of
> --every N or whatever policy is in effect) delete revisions in LRU
> order.

I think this is the better approach.  There's always going to be *one*
file *somewhere* in the tree that hasn't been updated since time
immemorial, and that file would keep all the old revisions in the library
(unless you start ranking a revision's importance by the _number_ of files
in the tree that are linked into from somewhere else).

>[convenience commands vs. core commands]
>
> I agree with all of that.
>
> There are parts of the proposed library hacks that _are_ core
> functionality, and parts that are clearly "convenience" commands and
> ideally belong in itla.

Wasn't the plan for all the core commands to be those that directly map to
function calls in libarch, making a core-command-only version of tla a
trivial command-line option parser?  (or has the libarch plan been shelved
while I wasn't looking?)

I for one am a very strong proponent of there being exactly one command
that I use for my day to day work (whether that is tla or itla or
whatever, I don't care, but I don't want to have to remember which command
contains whichever function I want to use).

Regards,

  Mark Thomas.
-- 
|| Mark Thomas
|| efaref.net
||
|| Always use tasteful words. You may have to eat them.