>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefan> Assuming you have a strong hash of the whole revision,
Stefan> re-snapping can be done without accessing the archive,
Stefan> whereas rebuilding the revision would require accessing
Stefan> the archive. When the archive is remote, the difference
Stefan> is enormous.
That's a big assumption, isn't it? Specifically, is "a strong hash of
the whole revision" significantly easier to compute reliably than a
Git tree object?
Note that my point is not that the savings are small in operation.
"Enormous" is a good word here. It's that I suspect that the needed
changes to tla are large. I think that's the way to go in the long
run (all the way to Git indexes, even). But can we get there before
Arch 2.0, with a reasonable amount of effort, maintaining reliability
in 1.x through the process?
--
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
_______________________________________________
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/
