Re: Base text files, re: IRC chat

>We could have the wc record itself every time some svn command accesses
>it -- is this what you plan?

That is potentially expensive and complex, turning a read-only
operation into a read/write one; rarely a good idea. It also
introduces more points of failure.

Otherwise, available options seem to be:

1. Keep strict reference counts (or reverse references) in the shared
   base, and tell the user to only use Subversion-approved means of WC
   removal, or else.

   Variants:
   a. Force trees sharing the same text-base to live within a single
      hierarchy (Bazaar). Not sure how that helps, other than limiting
      the scope for exhaustive search for references.
   b. Keep conservative reference counts (that may overstate the need for
      each file), and accept a certain leakage.

2. Don't keep reference counts but treat the text-base tree as the
   cache it really is, and purge old entries once it exceeds a certain
   user-specified size.

   Disconnected operation is a minor problem. A command to "please ensure
   that this WC is fully backed in my text-base" might work.

3. Forget about the idea, seductive as it is, for now at least.
   (And the new WC _will_ be done quicker without holding it hostage to
   a shared text-base facility.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-09-15 16:27:53 CEST