subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Les Mikesell <lesmikes...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Update-Only Checkout Enhancement
Date Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:16:36 GMT
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> wrote:
>
> Absolutely, the answer here isn't a one size fits all.  Nobody is objecting to
> the idea of allowing this.  The problem is that the code is not designed to
> allow this and it's a ton of work to change that.  I can think of a good 10
> other things that would require the same level of effort that would improve
> things for a lot more people
>
> Once you no longer need a pristine there are a lot of potential scenarios that
> require different behaviors.  So it's not even a simple matter of just changing
> the working copy library to support pristines not existing.  It becomes
> thinking about how to deal with these scenarios (not that all of them need to
> be implemented immediately, but you probably want to not pigeon hole yourself
> into an implementation that doesn't support them).

I guess I don't understand why it couldn't be as simple as having the
library get a pristine copy on demand if some operation needs it.
Isn't there already a recovery procedure for a missing pristine file?
 And then make saving it optional.

As a case in point, consider the accumulation of cruft on a typical
jenkins build server where a large set of projects are built and
rarely removed -  you have to allow much more disk space to each build
slave to accommodate the pristine files that don't have a whole lot of
use.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message