On 01/11/2011 08:20 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> I'm not 100% sure whether close_wcroot() is the best place to delete
> unreferenced pristines. Review of the concept would be useful here, in
> comparison with other options such as deleting after flushing the work
> queue or at some other place.
Just throwing this idea out there: what if we didn't automatically delete
the pristines, but instead marked them as unused and let 'svn cleanup'
quickly purge the unused pristines? I'm thinking forward here to the day
when our updates/switches/etc. get back from the server the skelta -- with
checksums -- and the client has the option to fetch the file contents or
locate it in the pristines area. More pristines to choose from means a
better chance of local "hit".
We could make this configurable, like other common applications which allow
folks to configure content cache behavior. After all, our pristine area is
today really just a content cache with a forced floor value --
sizeof(unique-pristines-in-use) -- right? (Someday that floor might even
optionally go away per the requests we've long heard about optional
text-bases.) We could go boolean with the configuration: delete unused
pristines in close_wcroot() or wherever; or don't delete them at all until
'svn cleanup' is run. Or we could do something more complex, allowing folks
to configure the maximum combined size of unused pristines kept around.
*shrug* Ignore the crazy old guy in the corner.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2011-01-11 14:44:15 CET