[MERGE] Makeing WorkingTree nicer to derive from.

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 16:28 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2006, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:

> > True. But it means that if someone changes the order of locking, they
> > are aware that we were expecting the previous order. I understand we
> > don't test 2 codebases. But we can let people know when they change
> > something that we expect to work in a certain way.
> 
> I agree with John that the locking protocol is part of the specification
> for the format and so should (at least in principle) be tested, so that
> we make sure not to accidentally change it.  It is a format-specific
> thing, and testing it for old formats is arguably not a high priority.

Based on IRC discussions with Martin, I think this boils down to me
saying "testing the lock order here is bad because it uses internals ;
and testing the ordering is not important enough to wear the cost that
that imposes, or to change the interface sufficiently to allow the
features needed to test this with public interfaces."

> And I'd rather not change the repo/branch order for existing formats
> unless we have to.  Yes, the timeout will prevent us from deadlocking
> permanently, but the chance of causing both ends to hit a long timeout
> is somewhat higher.

uhm, repo<->branch is not part of this discussion, I've left that can
alone :).

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: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060721/86c5ee12/attachment.pgp