2015-03-10 9:48 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>:
On 10 Mar 2015, at 09:43, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-03-10 9:28 GMT+01:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>:
But stiil, the changes allow you a recovery in case of a crash. It has
some valuables side effects.
Yes, it was genius to merge both source storage and transaction log 30 years ago... today we would not do that.
Wouldn't we? Or would we do a more compact log format, optimizing by the knowledge of what is in the image and what is inside the package repositories?
right now we throw away the transaction log with the image. So we are not talking about a lot of data.
Hum. The .sources is big and duplicated in the packages.
i.e. I'm not sure that the fundamental is wrong. Just that the environment is a bit different.
I toyed a long time ago with the idea of having a git as a replacement of the changes. On every method change, you commit... Has a way of compacting by itself the changes. Largely overkill :)
Now, I could also see a scheme based on MC, where the source of a method is fetched from the package (with an ast cache, if needed). Not very difficult to do.
But it's not very grandiose. Just a bit of software engineering. Not interesting ;)
Everything is like that. Just your *goal* changes if typing "do:" is part of something interesting or not.
It also depends on a very significant factor. Will this do: be used or not? If it won't because the next best thing will take preeminence as soon as it is ready in a few years, then you don't invest in the do:. Thierry