From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rerere: fix overeager gc Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:49:43 +0200 Message-ID: <4C2D7DF7.8030408@viscovery.net> References: <1277811498-17288-1-git-send-email-szeder@ira.uka.de> <7vy6dx90uk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4C2AE04E.9090901@viscovery.net> <7v1vbn417d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?SZEDER_G=E1bor?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jul 02 07:49:58 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OUZ8P-0006YD-10 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:49:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755260Ab0GBFtv (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jul 2010 01:49:51 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:27836 "EHLO lilzmailso01.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755012Ab0GBFts (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jul 2010 01:49:48 -0400 Received: from cpe228-254.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OUZ8C-00040V-5b; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:49:44 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.95] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9341660F; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 07:49:43 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5 In-Reply-To: <7v1vbn417d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 7/1/2010 18:27, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Johannes Sixt writes: > >> Would it be possible to update the timestamp of preimage every time it is >> used (e.g., in rerere.c:merge()), and check for that? > > It would be _possible_, but we are _not_ modifying the file at that point, > so somehow that solution feels very wrong, no? rr-cache is basically a static database. The fact that we have a file named 'thisimage' is just an abuse - to put a temporary file somewhere. Therefore, depending on lockfile infrastructure to change timestamps for us while manipulating 'thisimage' should feel no less wrong, don't you think so? -- Hannes