Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: corrupt library (failed inode signature validation)

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 05:44:47PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> >> Bigger, sure, but "much bigger"?  Really?
> >> > About two or three orders of magnitude bigger.
> >> Huh?  You mean that the Emacs archive is about 100 to 1000 times larger
> >> than a checked out Emacs tree (which weighs at about 50MB) ?
> > No, a revision library.
> 
> So you're saying that a revlib is "much bigger" or that what I want is "much
> bigger" than a revlib?  I think you mean the first.
> 
> I already have a revlib (a cache of full-fledged revisions) but
> I additionally want to cache things like patches.  I don't think those
> extra patches will blow up the whole thing by a factor of 100 or 1000.

Pay attention to context. If I'd been talking about that, I'd have
replied in the subthread where you were talking about that.

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

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature