On 01/10/2014 02:00 PM, Ben Reser wrote: > Wish that cleaning up pristines hadn't been overloaded into cleanup. Ran into > a situation where I crashed the client today. So I needed to run cleanup, but > I hadn't run cleanup in a very long time so of course it took a while since it > also went through all the pristines to cleanup the unreferenced ones. We > don't > even have an option to say not to do that. > > I'm not sure what we should do here. But just always cleaning up pristines on > cleanup with no args seems like a bad choice from a UI perspective. If we > start cleaning up pristines automatically based on some sort of expiration > (balancing speed for switches and updates between revisions and space) then I > can't imagine we'll want cleanup destroying the cached data. > > Do we want a separate sub-command for managing pristines? Or do we want to > just add an option to cleanup to say to remove unreferenced pristines?
Just a reminder that there can be performance benefits to not being too aggressive in our pristine purging, since update-style operations will consult the pristine cache before slurping file contents from the server. I think that's what you're alluding to when you say "balancing speed for switches and updates", but just wanted to call that out explicitly. -0.9 on a new subcommand. Hanging an option on 'svn cleanup' seems quite reasonable, though.
