[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so go
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Sep 2003 08:44:54 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: Andrew Suffield <address@hidden>
> > >From those reasons, it's not trivially SPF, it's a heuristic search
> > whose goal is to approximate SPF in the face of incomplete knowledge
> > and with the catch that asking the wrong questions during the
> > heuristic makes the heuristic worse than useless. (Perhaps there is a
> > meta-problem that reduces to a different instance of SPF, sure...)
> Here's a trivial variation that fixes it: if the cost of examining a
> branch of the graph is too high, prune that branch (assume its cost
> would be infinite).
> We can give a trivial definition of "too high" as "neither a local
> archive nor an archive which was specified as part of the original
> search".
> Both of these criteria can be improved upon to make the search produce
> better results, but this will _work_ so long as you always cache
> tagged revisions - so it's probably a good starting point.
See my last reply to address@hidden in the thread. Basically, yes.
-t
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Miles Bader, 2003/09/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good,
Tom Lord <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/28