[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len
From: |
Andrew Suffield |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic |
Date: |
Thu, 2 Oct 2003 23:59:32 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 12:42:29AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <address@hidden> writes:
> > Arch archives are just tarballs with no real metadata, so this doesn't
> > apply.
>
> Yup. I've always been struck by the number of times I've seen notes
> posted on the LKML about people having to rebuild their BK archives; I
> don't know if it means there's something fragile about the
> representation, or whether it just means they're hitting it extremely
> hard...
I don't know about BK, but SVN certainly is fragile as all heck. This
problem seems prevalent in other revision control systems.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/02
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/02
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Samuel Tardieu, 2003/10/02
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/02
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Samuel Tardieu, 2003/10/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/03