Re: More precise tag following
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).
Show 6 quoted lines
>>> 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 / \
Simon 'corecode' Schubert <corecode@fs.ei.tum.de>