shared storage and branch api

[Robert Collins]

On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 10:13 -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:

> > Ok, thats good. I think it might be a good idea to have the branch
> > get_revision and so on actively filter for revisions-that-have been
> > merged, (so that one can use the store to get any revision, and the
> > branch to get relevant revisions).
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> I think that would be a loss.
> 
> There's only one circumstance I'm aware of in which it's useful for
> get_revision to fail.  That's when we want to find out whether we need
> to copy the revision into local storage.  Forcing get_revision to fail
> when the data was already in local storage would cause us to download
> and attempt to add things to the local stores that were already there.

mmm, I should be more clear I guess :).

At the Branch level, methods should have semantic relevance to the
branch - otherwise they become needless delegation. If
branch.get_revision() is *identical* to
branch.revision_store[revision_id], then I think that is *is* needless
delegation and we should remove branch.get_revision(). 

Whether branch.get_revision was made to filter by the ancestry graph,
then branch to branch copying would be done by checking against the
branch.revision_store - which seems clean to me.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20050907/f598e75d/attachment.pgp