On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 09:01 -0500, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:43 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> > 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?
> Isn't that how it works now? Here is Julian's message that started this thread:
> "The current situation without this work is that many pristine texts
> are not deleted when they become unreferenced, and they accumulate in
> the pristine store until the user runs "svn cleanup". I think that is
> not good enough even for an initial release."
That's right. And C-Mike's thoughts there are exactly the sort of
enhancements I'm thinking we'll want to consider after 1.7.
> FWIW, I agree with you that using cleanup seems acceptable to me.
I think it would be an embarrassing regression. Only a few people would
ever actually bother to read the release notes and do regular "svn
cleanup"s before their disks fill up.
Even if we do decide not to implement automatic deletion yet and just
rely on "svn cleanup", the reference-counting itself is, I think, a
piece of implementation that we definitely want.
Received on 2011-01-11 15:19:58 CET