[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] hardlinked pristine trees
From: |
Bruce Stephens |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] hardlinked pristine trees |
Date: |
Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:52:11 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Pau Aliagas <address@hidden> writes:
[...]
> But (and that's a big but), I don't see any danger in hardlinking
> pristine trees. The danger is the same than if you corrupt a local
> pristine, be it hardlinked or not, but the benefits are obvious:
> space saving, full speed gets, etc. Pristine trees are neeed, for
> instance, to compute what-changed.
[...]
> Does anybody have an opinion about it?
Much better to have sparse revision libraries, and do away with
pristine trees altogether, IMHO.
- [Gnu-arch-users] hardlinked pristine trees, Pau Aliagas, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] hardlinked pristine trees,
Bruce Stephens <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] hardlinked pristine trees, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: hardlinked pristine trees, Pau Aliagas, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: hardlinked pristine trees, Tom Lord, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: hardlinked pristine trees, Pau Aliagas, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: hardlinked pristine trees, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/10/04
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: hardlinked pristine trees, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] hardlinked pristine trees, Tom Lord, 2003/10/03