[MERGE] Tree.revision_tree

[Robert Collins]

On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 09:07 -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > I dont really like the depth of handshaking we're getting into here:
> > every call to repository.revision_trees() is going to have to ask an
> > arbitrary number of trees for their *current* set of cached tree data.
> 
> I don't think that's a good characterization.  I'm proposing registering
> WorkingTrees with their repositories at object instantiation time.  We
> rarely have more than two working trees active, and often just one.
> 
> And in the case where the data *is* cached, it's a pretty good tradeoff, no?

I've left this for a couple of weeks to think about, but it still
doesn't make sense to me. We're saying that Repository will deliver data
from a WorkingTree rather than having the WorkingTree deliver the data
it can.

John, Martin - could guys read this thread and throw in your 2c as tie
breakers ?

-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/20060927/ee25d089/attachment.pgp