[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: sparse libs and merge fest fun
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: sparse libs and merge fest fun |
Date: |
14 Nov 2003 17:09:09 +0900 |
Pau Aliagas <address@hidden> writes:
> I think that the default behaviour should be to build sparse revisions.
> People are usually less interested in older revisions IMHO.
I agree.
Of course I think the best interface is the one I suggested in my
savannah bug report:
* default is only the one rev
* --every=N option to allow adding `every N' revisions; the old
behavior is N == 1. One nuance is that I think it should decide
_which_ options to add based on the patch number, i.e., add a given
revision in the range if (P % N) == 0, where P is the patch number,
so that they remain the same over time (as long as N is the same).
* --until says that it's OK _not_ to add the specified revision (i.e.,
it's a boundary, not an explicit request); together with --every,
this would make it simple to automatically maintain a certain
frequency of revision entries, just by periodically doing `--every N
--until LATEST-REV' [BTW, that reminds me, it would be nice to have
a tla tree-revision command to match tree-version -- of course it's
simple enough to do `tla logs -f | tail -1', but still...]
> I can imagine someone having all the tla libraries being added recursively
> or, by the same reasoning, the kernel revisions, looking at the I/O fest
> and running out of space.
Yes, it's happened to me several times ... :-)
-Miles
--
Is it true that nothing can be known? If so how do we know this? -Woody Allen