storage branch - control_files - public or private

[John Arbash Meinel]

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 21:12 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> 
>>Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>>>I think that branch.control_files should be private -
>>>branch._control_files.
>>>
>>>thoughts?
>>>
>>>Rob
>>
>>I sort-of agree. 'control_files' doesn't seem like a public api.
>>However, we need some way for external clients (plugins) to get access
>>to put() and put_utf8() so they can store their branch information.
>>
>>We really should expose the branch.put(), repository.put() and
>>checkout.put() so plugins can start thinking about what needs to be put
>>where.
> 
> 
> This implies that branches repositories and checkouts start to look like
> random file storage areas. I think thats bad. Rather than that, how
> about we offer specific apis for the things we want to support ? I.e. If
> you as a plugin author need to save settings, get a BranchConfig and
> set_user_setting on that. That there covers off all key-value settings
> for plugin authors. 
> 
> Do we want random file storage to be part of the service offered by
> branches/repositories/checkouts ?
> 
> Rob
> 

I'm not sure about random file storage. But if someone wants to
implement something like 'tags', it would be nice to give them a hook
they can use. Not everything is possible with a branch config.

Also, some plugins should make changes to the checkout (x-rsync-data),
other ones will be more about the branch (tags), and maybe some would be
repository specific.

John
=:->
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060105/96a67606/attachment.pgp