Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: Are pristine trees really dead?

[Jan Hudec]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:22:48 -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
> 
>     > From: Florian Weimer <address@hidden>
> 
>     > Tom Lord wrote:
> 
>     > > _Won't_ happen for different reasons, but prohibition against
>     > > cross-directory hard links doesn't imply a need for in-tree
>     > > pristines.  Why would it?
> 
>     > It makes space management a very pressing issue because your revision
>     > library tends to grow quickly, without bounds (even if it's sparse).
> 
> First thing is -- when I wrote that I was just sleepily overlooking
> the links _internal_ to a library and took you to be concerned about 
> linking to make project trees.   Sorry -- coffee is brewing.
> 
> Linkless revlibs would, indeed, grow quickly but I wonder if it might
> be worth it anyway, just to get pristines out from under {arch}.  More
> agressive pruning of the revlib would cure the space issue.  (And, as

In fact, pristine trees happen to suffer the same problem! The only
command that cleans up pristine tree is commit and it only takes care of
the latest pristine... So I quite often end up with several pristine
trees in one working copy and have to clean up manualy (using a script,
that kills all but last pristine). Note, that pristines are NEVER
linked...

> I said, I wonder if there isn't a union-mount option in some
> environments.)   But overall, such things are probably best left for 
> AFS users feeling the pain .....
> 
> -t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
> 
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
> 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec 
<address@hidden>