Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: archive storage format comments on the size

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 06:36:44PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:50:20AM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> > 
> >     > From: Andrea Arcangeli <address@hidden>
> > 
> >     Miles:
> >     >> Cached revisions don't work very well with extremely large source 
> > trees.
> > 
> >     > yes, the major problem is that they don't cache locally the granular
> >     > patchsets in the local machine. 
> > 
> >     > You lose information locally, if you fetch from the cacherev. 
> > 
> > Nonsense.  
> > 
> 
> nosense? do you realize I need the equivaltent of cvsps probably as the
> biggest feature of using an SCM in a big project where staying uptodate
> with the parallel development is non trivial?

I'm fairly sure we realise this, but your statement simply wasn't
true. Cached revisions don't lose any information. What makes you
think they do?

[None of the rest of your mail was relevant to this, so I'm not sure
why you included it]

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature