Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Archives vs. categories vs. versions

[John A Meinel]

Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 09:56:11AM +1100, address@hidden wrote:

[...]
> Why the time marking? I understand it's needed to work around
> some performance issues, but in all honesty it looks like a
> hack. Moreover, it's hard to automate. Why is it needed in to
> begin with?

As far as I know, it is solely for performance. The problem is that 
after you get 200+ revisions into a single version, you start noticing 
that some of the algorithms are O(N) (example, checking to see if you 
have an old revision in your library when the lib is empty causes a 
round trip for each revision, Cycling your archive breaks this check).

It isn't truly necessary. I'm not sure exactly what happens if you bump 
the version. I think the search crosses version/category boundaries, but 
not archives.

I think it would also be reasonable to tell the revlib searching code 
"if you haven't found it in N steps, just assume it's not there." N 
could be 10, or it could be 50, either way would probably help.
> > For projects within a big organization you might have the 
> > mainline trees in an archive named after the app, because
> > that's not going to change, but otherwise I suspect it just
> > hinders things.
>
>
> What would it hinder? And what about large sites, say SourceForge?
> What if they switch to arch? It would seem quite natural to me
> to create an archive for every project:
>     address@hidden
> Having the year in there would create lots of trouble and maintenance
> costs going forward. Can it be avoided? And at what cost?

I would generally say you get a full archive depending on how much 
turnover there is of your source, otherwise just put everything into 
one. I don't really know what that number is. But for a business' 
repository, it would make sense to try and keep the number low. Though 
if you really got into arch, everyone would probably have their own 
archive, and you would just have the main archive as a centralization point.

I certainly find that distributed archives work very well. (How else 
would I be helping the development of arch without central commit rights.)

John
=:->

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature