Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:11:31 -0500
From: "Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun@rogers.com>
To: John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com>
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Archives vs. categories vs. versions
Message-ID: <20041116051131.GU6137@rogers.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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41998810.8070309@arbash-meinel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: mlh@zipworld.com.au, "Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun@rogers.com>,
        gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Precedence: list
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: 1756
Lines: 41
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 10:54:40PM -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 09:56:11AM +1100, mlh@zipworld.com.au wrote:
> >
> 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).

Well, this is a problem I guess. Not so much for development itself,
but rather for places where you want to setup the archive once, and
simply forget about it. I guess none of the caching strategies in
arch avoid this O(n) problem, right?

> I would generally say you get a full archive depending on how much 
> turnover there is of your source, otherwise just put everything into 
> one. I don't really know what that number is. But for a business' 
> repository, it would make sense to try and keep the number low. Though 

And this is what I don't understand: why keep the number low. It
seems that arch works perfectly well across multiple archives, and
there isn't apparent cost to creating them, so why not do it?

> if you really got into arch, everyone would probably have their own 
> archive, and you would just have the main archive as a centralization point.

Right. And speaking of this centralized archive, any best practices
on how to setup? Like naming, location, permissions, etc.

-- 
Dimi.


_______________________________________________
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/