On 01/10/2014 02:00 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> Wish that cleaning up pristines hadn't been overloaded into cleanup. Ran into
> a situation where I crashed the client today. So I needed to run cleanup, but
> I hadn't run cleanup in a very long time so of course it took a while since it
> also went through all the pristines to cleanup the unreferenced ones. We don't
> even have an option to say not to do that.
>
> I'm not sure what we should do here. But just always cleaning up pristines on
> cleanup with no args seems like a bad choice from a UI perspective. If we
> start cleaning up pristines automatically based on some sort of expiration
> (balancing speed for switches and updates between revisions and space) then I
> can't imagine we'll want cleanup destroying the cached data.
>
> Do we want a separate sub-command for managing pristines? Or do we want to
> just add an option to cleanup to say to remove unreferenced pristines?
Just a reminder that there can be performance benefits to not being too
aggressive in our pristine purging, since update-style operations will
consult the pristine cache before slurping file contents from the
server. I think that's what you're alluding to when you say "balancing
speed for switches and updates", but just wanted to call that out
explicitly.
-0.9 on a new subcommand. Hanging an option on 'svn cleanup' seems
quite reasonable, though.
Received on 2014-01-10 20:11:46 CET