[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] corrupt pristine
From: |
Jan Hudec |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] corrupt pristine |
Date: |
Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:11:22 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 15:00:49 +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-10-30 at 14:49, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > Arch looks in the current tree and in neighbouring directories to find
> > a pristine, you really do need to delete it (or rename
> > ++pristine-trees to ++not-pristine-trees or something).
>
> Is that appropriate?
Yes, it is. Any information it can find that can speed up the checkout
should be used.
If you have a broken pristine, it's useless. It should be deleted.
(still wonder why tla does not do it itself).
> It wasn't a neighbouring tree, it was a subdirectory!
That is a neighbouring tree of the newly-created directory...
> I wanted to checkout/get, not commit! As in, I wanted a new tree, with a
> new pristine!!
No, you did not! You wanted a new tree. Point. The pristines are a cache
-- no need to cache one thing twice as long as it can find the first
instance.
> This seems to me like a logically wrong thing to do - surely a bug in
> the pristines-locating algorithm?
Taken into account that it's quite a lot extra work to do...
It is deliberate. It increases the chance that a pristine will be found
and tla won't have to download all the patches.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec
<address@hidden>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: corrupt pristine, (continued)
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] corrupt pristine, John Meinel, 2004/10/12
[Gnu-arch-users] corrupt pristine, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/10/30
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] corrupt pristine,
Jan Hudec <=