On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:18, Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:
>> (*) and if the work items cannot succeed, then we have problems. I
>> could imagine the process is killed during the wq run, some source
>> files are torched, and then the destination is cleaned up (ie. wq is
>> run again). Without the source files, then we'd have problem
>> completing the work items. Thus, an argument exists for stashing away
>> copies of all (modified or unversioned) sources into temp files.
> That's what I've been implementing.
(I haven't had a chance to look at your work yet)
>> Non-modified are just pulled from the pristine store.
> I don't see an benefit in this. Whether we copy from the pristine or
> the unmodified working we still have to make a copy. It might even be
> more efficient to copy from the unmodified working where keywords/eols
> are already expanded. Using the pristine would allow us to delay the
> copy but that doesn't seem to be an advantage.
Hmm. Sure. I was just thinking of how to avoid copies, but you're
right: a new file is constructed regardless.
That said, copy-from-pristine also sets up the
translated_size/last_mod_time automatically as part of the work item.
You could simply use that work item without worrying about recording
fileinfo in another codepath.
(your comment a while back to julian about when the info is recorded
was quite instructive; I'd never looked at it as "only record if/when
we know the working file is an unchanged (translated) copy of the
Received on 2010-06-04 19:53:13 CEST