(fwd) bzr shelve feedback

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jan Hudec wrote:
>>Implementation of hiding may be a problem.  If you mean to store them
>>separately, you lose a lot of the compression advantages of weaves.
>>Making some revisions in a weave hidden would be hard.
> 
> 
> I'd rather store them in the weave, not because of space savings, but
> mainly for ease of merging and simplicity. On the other hand when it's
> used in the quilt way, you could quickly gather rather many shelf
> revisions (because they are never deleted) and most of them is really
> worthless once the feature is ready. Thus I'd prefer if fetch could not
> bring them over unless explicitly asked for (and push/pull would not ask
> by default).

I'm not sure that makes anything simpler.  It just puts the complexity
into Fetcher, and Fetcher is already very greedy (it copies all revision
of the file in the remote weave, not just the ones you need).

Having two kinds of revisions stored in the repository complicates the
model.  Teaching Fetcher about the two kinds of revisions and getting it
to only fetch one kind would take a lot of work.  And what about the
people who work on the code but don't realize there are two kinds of
revisions?

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDhxqw0F+nu1YWqI0RAqHzAJ4tT6ES7xg3ymSej0YK5Tf7e5KJGACeO9jq
ZHXZpl0GRYMpdRQINQGNcWc=
=PxdH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----