[darcs-users] [OT] Larry McVoy on the Bitkeeper licence

[Ketil Malde]

Matthias Andree <matthias.andree at gmx.de> writes:

>> avoid holding it in memory.  Even for the linux kernel, the contents of the
>> complete patch inventory are pretty darn small (only 26k patches or so).
>> So I figure it's better to hold in memory than to reread from file (or
>> worse, from network).

> why does the application have to care for holding the
> stuff in memory, rather than the operating system's buffer or cache?

I don't think the application gets any say in this¹, the OS will page
in/out at its leisure.  So when David says "in memory", that may be
paged to swap or from files.

> Stupid question: 

Don't say that, or I'll insert my favorite Mr. Garrison quote :-)

-kzm

¹ well, there's madvise(2) etc, but I don't think its relevant here
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants