On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:07 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: > 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?
Most DVCS use some crazy compression for storing the blob contents of the repo, whereas we don't use *any*. However, these systems usually do require a additional, out-of-band command to do the compression. -Hyrum
