On 01/11/2011 09:01 AM, 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."
I overlooked this part of Julian's mail, and ignorantly figured we were just
accumulating unused pristines today. But the salient point of my mail
stands: maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, if folks are
cool with letting a DVCS tool cache a whole stinkin' repository on their
disk(!), what's a relatively small number of extra pristines?
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2011-01-11 15:07:52 CET