Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch: automatic remove the corrupt revlib revision

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

    Stefan> Assuming you have a strong hash of the whole revision,
    Stefan> re-snapping can be done without accessing the archive,
    Stefan> whereas rebuilding the revision would require accessing
    Stefan> the archive.  When the archive is remote, the difference
    Stefan> is enormous.

That's a big assumption, isn't it?  Specifically, is "a strong hash of
the whole revision" significantly easier to compute reliably than a
Git tree object?

Note that my point is not that the savings are small in operation.
"Enormous" is a good word here.  It's that I suspect that the needed
changes to tla are large.  I think that's the way to go in the long
run (all the way to Git indexes, even).  But can we get there before
Arch 2.0, with a reasonable amount of effort, maintaining reliability
in 1.x through the process?


-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.