Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch: automatic cacherev and smarter get

[Milan Cvetkovic]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

>>Disagree. Revision libraries although nice to have are not needed for
>>real work with tla. Pristines and periodical cacherevs are often enough.
>>    
>>
>
>Why settle with "often enough" when you can have revision-libraries?
>I really wish tla stopped supporting pristines and just forced the use of
>a greedy revlib (which would be setup automatically in a default location,
>if needed).
>
>  
>
There are some cases when one does not need either.
Consider an automatic build process. It checks out, and builds. It will
never do "tla changes" or
"tla commit". It does not need a local copy of a tree before changes,
there will never be changes.

Tla has UI hooks for this: If you use it with pristines, you should be
able to "tla get --no-pristine" to avoid creating pristine.
But I think that this functionality is broken.

Milan

>Yes the implementation of revlibs could be improved as well, but tla without
>revlibs is simply too painful to use in too many cases.
>  
>

>Now, that doesn't mean cacherevs are unnecessary.  The two are largely
>orthogonal.  But, yes, having a revlib does change the use of cacherevs.
>They make it possible to focus on having just at most one cacherev per
>version, covering the latest revision (or nearby).
>
>
>        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/
>
>  
>