[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good |
Date: |
24 Sep 2003 18:41:22 +0900 |
Stig Brautaset <address@hidden> writes:
> > > > Someone recently asked me to add a cached revision for my emacs
> > > > archive, which according to the conventional wisdom would make
> > > > sense, since there's quite a few changesets in there.
>
> > The problem I'm having has to do with whether using a cached revision is
> > the best thing for a _user_ of an archive, which varies depending on the
> > user's environment (plus details of the source tree involved), not the
> > server's.
>
> I fail to see why --no-cache is orthogonal to your problem. If people
> are on a slow line and need to get to your stuff often (or even
> occasionally) they should run their own mirror. Thus you can put cached
> revisions in _your_ mirror, but people are free to only mirror the
> cached revisions if they want to.
It means having multiple mirrors for different users, and in fact
multiple mirrors for different _stages_ of a user's use, and the user
has to choose between them based on details of his environment. Gee
doesn't _that_ sound user-friendly!
I.e., instead of just address@hidden', I'll need:
address@hidden
address@hidden
address@hidden
The user shouldn't be making decisions like this, the implementation
should be. I think any time you need a _discussion_ of which mirror is
the best one to use, something's wrong (which is why I'm going to put
.listing in all of my mirrors, BTW).
Morever, the solution of `just don't use cached revisions' is pretty
lame, because it _does_ get annoying to have star-merge replay 150
changesets (twice!). I think my idea of `cached changeset summaries'
seems reasonable for this.
-Miles
--
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
--Albert Einstein
- [Gnu-arch-users] situations where cached revisions are not so good, Miles Bader, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Stig Brautaset, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Miles Bader, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Stig Brautaset, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Miles Bader, 2003/09/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28