Re: [Gnu-arch-users] caching revisions

[Aaron Bentley]

David Allouche wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 09:28 -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
>
> > With an error.  It would be deceptive to claim that a new cacherev had 
> > been installed if it hadn't.  For example, if you know your cacherev 
> > checksums are bogus but don't know you need to uncacherev, you might do 
> > cacherev, see no error output, and assume the problem is fixed.
>
>
> I would also have made cacherev (resp. uncacherev) fail when the the
> cachedrev is present (resp. missing) but it seems that's not the
> convention in tla.

I don't understand what you mean by resp.

> Ever since tla 1.1, cacherev (resp. uncacherev) is considered idempotent
> and silently succeeds if the cachedren is already present (resp.
> missing).

In 1.1, I assume cacherev wasn't literally idempotent-- it did upload 
new cacherevs which should have been equivalent to the previous ones. 
In 1.2, checksums were introduced, so it was no longer idempotent in any 
sense.

As I mentioned to Robert, my preferred solution would be to make 
double-cachereving upload a new cacherev and update the checksums 
properly.

Aaron