[Gnu-arch-users] Re: libraries / cacherevs

[Miles Bader]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
> Another problem I have with tla is that the full patch-log is always
> attached to the tree.  Maybe it's convenient to have the whole log
> available offline, but the problem of working offline is already
> addressed by archive mirrors and revision libraries, so I don't think
> it's a good justification to spend so much disk space and time (all
> the revlib operations also have to build/check those umpteen patch-log
> files thingies).

I think it's an important part of arch that the logs are part of the
file tree rather than being a sort of repository-only metainfo as they
are in many other rcses.

One thing that's been discussed in the past is to allow some patch-logs
to be batched up and stored as compressed-tar-files in the tree (though
in the same general location as normal patch-logs), with explicit user
commands to batch or unbatch patch-log ranges.  This would preserve the
good properties of patch logs, but use a great deal less disk space and
inodes (patch-logs compress very well, and because they're usually so
small, tend to waste a lot of space due to filesystem granularity).

-Miles
-- 
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten.  [George Carlin]