2015-03-10 9:48 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr>: > > On 10 Mar 2015, at 09:43, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goub...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 2015-03-10 9:28 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr>: > >> > >> > But stiil, the changes allow you a recovery in case of a crash. It has >> some valuables side effects. >> > >> >> Yes, it was genius to merge both source storage and transaction log 30 >> years ago... today we would >> not do that. >> > > Wouldn't we? Or would we do a more compact log format, optimizing by the > knowledge of what is in the image and what is inside the package > repositories? > > > right now we throw away the transaction log with the image. So we are not > talking about a lot of data. >
Hum. The .sources is big and duplicated in the packages. > > i.e. I'm not sure that the fundamental is wrong. Just that the environment > is a bit different. > > I toyed a long time ago with the idea of having a git as a replacement of > the changes. On every method change, you commit... Has a way of compacting > by itself the changes. Largely overkill :) > > Now, I could also see a scheme based on MC, where the source of a method > is fetched from the package (with an ast cache, if needed). Not very > difficult to do. > > But it's not very grandiose. Just a bit of software engineering. Not > interesting ;) > > > Everything is like that. Just your *goal* changes if typing "do:" is part > of something interesting or not. > It also depends on a very significant factor. Will this do: be used or not? If it won't because the next best thing will take preeminence as soon as it is ready in a few years, then you don't invest in the do:. Thierry
