On Sunday 08 May 2005 14:21, Philip Martin wrote:
> Thomas Zander <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Sunday 08 May 2005 13:27, Philip Martin wrote:
> >> Thomas Zander <email@example.com> writes:
> >> > On Sunday 08 May 2005 01:12, Philip Martin wrote:
> >> The paragraph above...
> > ..
> >> ...is my answer to your question.
> > I posted an answer to prove you wrong twice already; please respond why
> > you don't think that fixes it. With an example if that will make it
> > clearer.
> Either I didn't see it, or I didn't understand it.
I'll paste it here:
you are almost sure to have different
versions in the individual dirs as is; this won't change if only changes to
the parent are recorded, like I proposed. So in practice only one dir up
will be read the first time; and a second time only the current one.
> [...] Do you agree? [...]
> Do you agree? [...]
> Do you agree?
3 x Yes
> While your idea may make update faster, it will make other operations
No; read my answer on how in practice this will not happen in the usecase
you proposed. In fact; the only usecase where this will have an effect is
if you usually do a global update (your whole project) and then only update
one nested subdir. Then _one time_ will that do some extra reads.
Which part of my answer don't you understand? I pasted it 3 times and you
still have not responed to it.
Received on Sun May 8 16:35:13 2005
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored