[rfc] [merge] removal of support for reverse changeset application

[John A Meinel]

Denys Duchier wrote:
> Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> writes:
> 
>>> It also simplifies the task of directly computing the resulting inventory
>>> from the changeset (so I have a vested interest in this
>>> simplification).
>> I still don't agree that computing the inventory from the changeset is
>> the right approach.  Since you want to mark the predecesors for files
>> that have had merges, it would make sense to do it when you actually
>> perform the merges, i.e. as metadata changes in apply_changeset.
> 
> Perhaps I'm missing your point, but you don't seem to be disagreeing
> with the approach but with the timing.  My goal is to fuse
> apply_changeset and apply_changeset_to_inventory.  The latter function
> was merely a convenient stepping stone in the interest of modular,
> staged development.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --Denys

I believe Aaron's original idea was deeper seated. He was thinking to
change the actually ChangesetEntry objects, so that their "apply()"
functions would change both the physical contents on disk, and the
inventory.

The nice part about doing it that way, is it maintains the separation
between the lower and upper layers.
It means that ChangeExec.apply() can set/unset the 'executable="yes"'
flag, rather than having apply_changeset_to_inventory understand what
ChangeExec is doing, and how to apply it to the inventory.

John
=:->


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051222/56ca3909/attachment.pgp