[Gnu-arch-users] Re: libraries don't play well with partial mirrors

[Jason McCarty]

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> That's another argument for local caches instead of local mirrors;

Maybe, but in this case I would want most of the changesets to be
locally cached, as well as a few full revisions. Sounds a lot like a
partial mirror+revlib to me.

> 
> >It would be nice if library-adding understood that a missing ancestor
> >revision may be due to a partial mirror, rather than a corrupt one, and
> >to stop searching for ancestors at that point. 
> 
> Well, if you have a library revision for tla--devo--1.2--patch-114, you 
> can't determine whether that's an ancestor of tla--devo--1.3--patch-2 
> without consulting the revision data for all intermediate revisions.

But if my mirror doesn't contain the 1.2 branch, I don't expect my
revlib to either.

> It would sure help the backbuilder if stuff like this didn't cause 
> immediate program termination.  The backbuilder doesn't need every 
> arch_archive_connect to succeed, but arch_archive_connect will panic if 
> it fails.

Sounds reasonable. Is my bug one of those failures which are easily
recoverable?

-- 
Jason McCarty <address@hidden>