From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Lord Subject: Re: arch 2.0 first source available (git related) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:36:56 -0700 Message-ID: <1121117816.16511.5.camel@dev1.seyza.com> References: <1120867947.5882.2.camel@dev1.seyza.com> <20050709113942.GB26343@pasky.ji.cz> <1120918813.4901.27.camel@dev1.seyza.com> <20050711193944.GA5981@pasky.ji.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 11 23:44:01 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ds63o-0000ie-Uv for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:43:33 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262796AbVGKVmZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:42:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262834AbVGKVhw (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:37:52 -0400 Received: from smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.209]:49576 "HELO smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262811AbVGKVgl (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:36:41 -0400 Received: (qmail 35746 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2005 21:36:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO adsl-69-236-72-120.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net) (tom.lord@sbcglobal.net@69.236.72.120 with plain) by smtp110.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2005 21:36:36 -0000 To: Petr Baudis In-Reply-To: <20050711193944.GA5981@pasky.ji.cz> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-4) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 21:39 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 04:20:13PM CEST, I got a letter > where Thomas Lord told me that... > > The prereq graph is, indeed, an improvement. > ..snip.. > But object retrieval can be potentially as much as linear to the depth > of the prereq graph, right? Potentially but not, by far, in the common case. Moreover, that depth is an arbitrary parameter which user's can freely vary -- that's part of the point. > I don't think any of the benefits you listed > are worth the complication, and you can still do the reachability > analysis pretty easily. (And I think it takes the same number of > roundtrips when downloading from remote server?) > I don't agree that any complication is added. I know that some complications are avoided with this approach. -t