Re: More precise tag following

[Simon 'corecode' Schubert <corecode@fs.ei.tum.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1210 bytes --]

Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> So you want to store it in a pack, fetchable?

Or wherever.  Main point was "reusable", but actually that depends on how long it takes to build the cache (okay, i'll call it cache).

>>> It also gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that no bogus "auxillary 
>>> information" can be introduced by fetching from somewhere else. (It 
>>> does not matter if intended or unintended.)
>> I agree on that.
> 
> So you agree we should _not_ store it in a pack, fetchable?

I agree that it had advantages if you can opt out.

> So, if you _do_ have it in a pack, fetchable, what happens if you 
> regenerated it locally, fixing a flaw, but then fetch it from somewhere 
> else, where the flaw possibly still exists, what do you do?

the same what happens if you repack a pack locally.  the pack won't be re-fetched, thus your data won't be overwritten.

cheers
  simon

-- 
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low €€€ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]