[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Bazaar 1.3 preview

From: John A Meinel
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Bazaar 1.3 preview
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:05:40 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

David Allouche wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 01:09 +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:

I didn't try baz 1.3 preview, but I would like to know about the status
of several issues.

1) Don't you think "tree-id" command is misnamed? Use "tree-rev" name
if you feel "tree-revision" is not short enough (I don't feel so).

I concur.

Well, one thing that I've notice digging through the baz code, is that they actually are trying to restructure it, to potentially allow changes to the namespace. I can't say where they are going, but some of the structures look like a good place to change from c--b--v to maybe c--b--v--s, or c--b1--b2--b3--v, or something like that.

So it might be possible that because of a potential namespace restructure they are looking to use a more generic term "id" then sticking with revision.

The internal structure they use is called arch_patch_id, which calls fully qualified version name == branch. So internally the place where patches go is a "branch".

2) The flat-revision subdirectory structure in ~/.arch-cache leads to
huge directories, this is not scalable. Is not version/patchlevel
structure more balanced and more consistent?

I agree, the arch-cache hierarchy should use versions containership

      * the cache hierarchy groups revisions by archive names, so there
        is already a coupling with the namespace hierarchy.
      * just grouping revisions by archives leads to too big
        directories, that's not a good use filesystem storage.

Baz hackers?

I also fully agree that they should split again at the patch_level. However, I think the trick is that they are using the pun of a/c--b--v--r so that you can just say
dir = str_cat (cache_dir, fqrevision);

Without having to parse fqrevision. Again, this might be because they are thinking about a namespace restructure.

I'm being pretty speculative here, though.
And I think they could still do:

dir = str_alloc_cat_many (0, cache_dir, "/",
                arch_patch_id_branch (fqrevision), "/",
                arch_patch_id_patch_level (fqrevision));

Since they declare arch_patch_id_branch as the location where patches go.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]