Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Summit brainstorming

[Markus Schiltknecht]

Hi,

Graydon Hoare wrote:
> Christof Petig wrote:
> > I would rather complete partial pull for monotone than ...

Complete? Is there a beginning?

> Fair enough. I think actually the way I'd want to do this is in a few 
> separate pieces, to gain a bit of reuse along the way:
>   ...
>
>   2. Make the accept() loop also take an option to listen on an extra
>      port, and when it sees a connection on that port, fork off a
>      subprocess-on-a-pipe that speaks authenticated netsync back to
>      itself.

Why a special port? Can't this be part of netsync?

Am I right with my understanding, that this would allow a working copy 
'linked' to a remote database?

When thinking about 'partial pull', I'm envisioning something more like:

mtn pull --last=100

(which would pull the last 100 revisions and have the remaining 
ancestors marked as 'need-to-download')

Of course such a partial pull variant requires much more work to be done 
for many mtn commands (mainly all which access the history in any way, 
and thus could step on the 'need-to-download' revisions.)

I can see that a working copy linked to a remote database would have 
some advantages, but OTOH I think it's somewhat against monotone's 
distributed nature. A complete 'partial pull' implementation (as I 
understand it) would give us most of the above functionality with:

mtn pull --last=1

>   3. Optionally: write a program that runs "client side" and performs a
>      limited subset of monotone functions (checkout, update, merge,
>      commit, diff, log?) against an "imperative mode" server.

Why optionally? What would we gain with 1 and 2 without this?

>   4. Optionally: write a program that translates CVS pserver commands
>      into the imperative netsync commands, that runs server-side
>      pretending to be a CVS server.
>
>   5. Optionally: write any number of similar programs to translate
>      other tools' command streams into imperative netsync commands.

Oh, so you mean, we could do either 3, 4 or 5, right?

Regards

Markus