Re: [msysGit] Re: [Tortoisehg-discuss] Bazzar stratgy regarding shell extension

John Arbash Meinel wrote:

> You missed my point entirely.

I don't think so :)

> What you gain is a *shared* cache. So that you can allow up to XX

You mean a shared process. The cached information *can not* be shared
because it's not the same information!

> megabytes of memory in your cache. And if TSVN is very active, it will
> be able to use the whole cache. If both TBZR and TSVN are active, then
> they will share the cache. If TBZR is not doing anything, then it
> doesn't have to reserve any of the space in the cache.
>
> If you didn't have a shared cache, then each process would need to be
> more conservative as to how much it can cache, since it doesn't know how
> much is being cached by the other processes.
>
> I would actually estimate that you would save very little based on
> paths. Just because you are unlikely to have the same path in both SVN
> and BZR/HG/etc. If you did, I'm not sure what the programs would do
> anyway. (How do you show that the status is committed in SVN, but
> modified for BZR?)
>
> It isn't about saving memory, it is about *sharing* memory.

Ever heard of the term "operating system"? One of the jobs such an
operating system has is to manage the memory between processes.
I'm sorry, but sharing a cache for what you describe is *not* what we
should do. It's the job of the OS to manage the memory, not the job of a
shared cache process.
Or have you ever seen something like this? Ever seen graphic editor
share the memory?

Stefan

-- 
        ___
   oo  // \\      "De Chelonian Mobile"
  (_,\/ \_/ \     TortoiseSVN
    \ \_/_\_/>    The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
    /_/   \_\     http://tortoisesvn.net