[BUG] (trivial) duplicate text in "bzr pull --help"

[Aaron Bentley]

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

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Looking closely at the code, it seems like we always pull all of the
> file texts in all Fetchers. The Knit fetcher only is intelligent about
> fetching revisions.knit and revision-sigs.knit.

I don't understand.  If it were intelligent about fixing revisions.knit,
it wouldn't be reading one at a time.

> The GenericRepoFetcher uses a loop over the revision_ids and fetches
> them one by one. So probably that could be updated to call
> get_revisions() instead of get_revision() many times.
> 
> There is no multi-call (yet) for get_signature_texts(). But that could
> easily be implemented.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that get_revisions() is a Repository API, that is
> implemented in all cases (it can just loop over get_revision() if that
> is all that is available).

Yes, I did make sure there was a fallback.

>>>>>I think annotations should be considered a cache, and possibly invalid -

>>>I think that would have some nasty side effects.  We would always have
>>>to reannotate before performing a knit merge, because we can't expect
>>>good results if the annotations are invalid.

> I think the cached annotations can be considered 'as good as can be
> done'. Such that we realize re-diffing might return a different output
> (especially when changing diff algorithms).
> But at the time of creation/upgrading it was the best we could do.

I think it would be possible for the combination of two sets of
annotations to produce an annotation in which two different lines were
both attributed to a single original line.

So I think combining differently-annotated knits could indeed produce an
invalid annotation.

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

iD8DBQFEotMG0F+nu1YWqI0RAiFQAJ9MZJh9fHRpFKg3IC6EYfTbu9yrWgCfXinA
W/vHwGiG/qDYh9rtetEY7WQ=
=ZHE7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----