Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular

[David Allouche]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:23:10AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> James Blackwell <address@hidden> writes:
> > Would you (and everyone else that seems unhappy) be satisfied if instead
> > of "rbrowse --show-sealed" The command instead was
> > "rbrowse --hide-sealed" ? 
> 
> Personally I don't like this overloading of `sealed'.  Why not just add
> (a) new archive attribute(s) somewhere that explicitly says what you want
> it to, e.g. =hidden (or I suppose a more general =attributes that could
> hold a `hidden' flag)?

Not very long ago, the issue of =README files inside archives
(categories, branches, versions) was raised again. I looks like what you
are suggesting is very similar.

If I remember well, the issues were:

  1. makes mirrorring much slower

  2. unability to update atomically

The conclusion was:

  Metadata is to be stored in a special "archive-metadata" category.
  This fixes mirroring and atomicity issues and preserve compatibility.

I hinted toward this solution earlier in the thread. It has a number of
nice properties, like preserving good performance with abrowse and the
like if the last revision is cached. But then we hit the "mirror update
of cachedrevs" issue; ironically, that is an issue which can be fixed
with the archive-metada category.

The main problem with that approach is that it would require a new
internal support infrastructure which is not present yet.

-- 
                                                            -- ddaa