Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone-devel Digest, Vol 24, Issue 8

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:25:54PM +0100, address@hidden wrote:
> >> Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >How about:
> >
> >  function working_dir_change_detection_mode()
> >    return "reckless"
> >  end
> >
> >?  ;-)
> 
> How about providing an option to 'prune' the search against parts of the
> working tree which are unlikely to have changed? E.g. monotree has the
> Batick and Gxl libraries in the tree along with all their javadoc - this
> will never change until a new version is imported. It would also be good
> for directories which only ever contain derived objects.
> 
> Another alternative is to combine the two and be able to set the detection
> algorithm for each sub-tree.

That seems scarily fragile (what do you do when you _do_ change those
parts of the tree?  are you really going to remember to unset this
option?  computers are there to remember things for us...).  I'd also
definitely want to see a use case where the other mechanisms weren't
sufficient, first; just stating the files in your tree is not terribly
expensive, even for large trees.

Derived objects aren't (or shouldn't) be a problem anyway; monotone
only bothers to look at files that it has under version control in the
first place.

-- Nathaniel

-- 
"Of course, the entire effort is to put oneself
 Outside the ordinary range
 Of what are called statistics."
  -- Stephan Spender