Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Andrew Suffield <address@hidden>

    > > >From those reasons, it's not trivially SPF, it's a heuristic search
    > > whose goal is to approximate SPF in the face of incomplete knowledge
    > > and with the catch that asking the wrong questions during the
    > > heuristic makes the heuristic worse than useless.  (Perhaps there is a
    > > meta-problem that reduces to a different instance of SPF, sure...)

    > Here's a trivial variation that fixes it: if the cost of examining a
    > branch of the graph is too high, prune that branch (assume its cost
    > would be infinite).

    > We can give a trivial definition of "too high" as "neither a local
    > archive nor an archive which was specified as part of the original
    > search".

    > Both of these criteria can be improved upon to make the search produce
    > better results, but this will _work_ so long as you always cache
    > tagged revisions - so it's probably a good starting point.


See my last reply to address@hidden in the thread.    Basically, yes.

-t