[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal

[Miles Bader]

If you're worried that even the list of _revision names_ can get too
long, you can use a range format like:

   address@hidden/x--y--0--patch-25-107

That was my idea for making aggregated/compressed log files fast too --
encode the set of patches represented into the name of the aggrate.
E.g., you'd have files like `patch-10-100.tar.gz' which would contain
patch-10 through patch-100.  Then the check for patch existance would be
actually even faster than it is now, no uncompression needed.  [The
`cat-log' command would have to uncompress the whole thing to get a log
file, but that's probably alright.]

-Miles
-- 
Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here, 
 beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?