On 01/11/2011 09:01 AM, Mark Phippard wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:43 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> > wrote: >> On 01/11/2011 08:20 AM, Julian Foad wrote: >>> I'm not 100% sure whether close_wcroot() is the best place to delete >>> unreferenced pristines. Review of the concept would be useful here, in >>> comparison with other options such as deleting after flushing the work >>> queue or at some other place. >> >> Just throwing this idea out there: what if we didn't automatically delete >> the pristines, but instead marked them as unused and let 'svn cleanup' >> quickly purge the unused pristines? > > Isn't that how it works now? Here is Julian's message that started this > thread: > > "The current situation without this work is that many pristine texts > are not deleted when they become unreferenced, and they accumulate in > the pristine store until the user runs "svn cleanup". I think that is > not good enough even for an initial release."
I overlooked this part of Julian's mail, and ignorantly figured we were just accumulating unused pristines today. But the salient point of my mail stands: maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, if folks are cool with letting a DVCS tool cache a whole stinkin' repository on their disk(!), what's a relatively small number of extra pristines? -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
