On 11.01.2014 10:30, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2014-01-10 14:11:08 -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> 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. > If the working copy is the on same machine as the server, this doesn't > make much sense to keep unreferenced pristines.
Sure, but that setup is not really common. > Moreover if you want to speed up things, keeping pristines may not > be the right way (in particular if the whole files are kept, not > deltas). FWIW, you can't reasonably store pristines as deltas because you'd have to recalculate them every time someone changes the file in the working copy; and moreover, there's no foolproof way to detect when the WC files are being changed in time to do that. You'd need support from the OS filesystem for that (and I don't mean just file change notifications but copy-on-write per-file snapshots). > Caching the repository or a part of the repository may be better. That's exactly what pristines are. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion WANdisco // Non-Stop Data e. [email protected]
