On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:07 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> 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?
Most DVCS use some crazy compression for storing the blob contents of
the repo, whereas we don't use *any*. However, these systems usually
do require a additional, out-of-band command to do the compression.
Received on 2011-01-11 16:03:08 CET