Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla

[Milan Cvetkovic]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Main problem seems to be that inode-signature support is currently a bit
> > spotty (e.g., updates don't update them, last time I check, explicit id
> > checks don't take advantage of them, etc).
>
>
> Indeed, in my experience, tla's performance is pretty bad for the following
> reasons:
> - inode-signatures are only updated upon commit.
> - checking the revlib's consistency doubles the number of stat calls.
>   (ironically, the revlib checking is mostly due to the fear of corruption
>   with --link stuff.  I don't want to use (and can't anyway) --link so I've
>   disabld revlib checking).  Disabling revlib checking makes `tla
>   file-diffs' instantaneous (instead of taking several seconds), as it
>   should be.

And how exactly did you do it (disable revlib checking)?

Thanks, Milan

> - most importantly: (almost) all operations apply to the whole tree.
>   So even if you work in a small subdirectory of a dozen files, all
>   operations will take time proportional to the thousands of files in
>   your project.
>
>
>         Stefan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
>
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/