To: John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com>
References: <20041115191000.GA30577@rogers.com>
	<41990CD4.9050003@arbash-meinel.com>
	<20041115225611.GC28559@zipworld.com.au>
	<20041116043454.GT6137@rogers.com>
	<41998810.8070309@arbash-meinel.com>
From: Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp>
System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Blat: Foop
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:09:10 +0900
In-Reply-To: <41998810.8070309@arbash-meinel.com> (John A. Meinel's message
	of "Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:54:40 -0600")
Message-ID: <buo1xeucrd5.fsf@mctpc71.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: mlh@zipworld.com.au, "Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun@rogers.com>,
        gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Archives vs. categories vs. versions
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1037
Lines: 18
John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com> writes:
> As far as I know, it is solely for performance. The problem is that
> after you get 200+ revisions into a single version, you start noticing
> that some of the algorithms are O(N) (example, checking to see if you
> have an old revision in your library when the lib is empty causes a
> round trip for each revision, Cycling your archive breaks this check).

Hmmm, my emacs branch just hit 700 revisions (in this archive), and I
have no obvious problems in daily usage -- and I access it remotely over
a slow link!  However the "tag" command does seem to have some
bogosities with many revisions.

Anyway, even if this is a problem, I think bumping the version is pretty
much equivalent to changing your archive in this respect

-Miles
-- 
Would you like fries with that?


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/