Ludovic> I agree as well. The "sporadic unexpected
Ludovic> backup/restore" configuration which Matthieu described is
Ludovic> probably not a very common case. As such, it is not
Ludovic> enough to motivate automatic deletion and recreation of
Ludovic> revision libraries, IMO.
> This is the same mistake Derek makes in reverse.
> You see, *it already has motivated it, twice.* I don't recall whether
> Matthieu said he had a script or whether he just says "oh gawd, not
> again," and rebuilds the revlibs, but it's just as automatic as a
> script. Derek went to the trouble of writing and submitting a patch.
> Their environments are not going to wake up and say "it got better"
> someday. That's pretty strong motivation, I think.
But IIUC rather than removing the revlib, it would be better to re-snap the
inodes because the revlib hasn't actually been corrupted. Right?
So we could have our cake and eat it too: repair the "corrupted" revlib
automatically and yet never do an "rm -rf" without the user's
explicit consent.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
