loggerhead: alternative web front-end
robey at lag.net
Wed Dec 20 01:30:10 GMT 2006
On 19 Dec 2006, at 1:18, James Henstridge wrote:
> On 15/12/06, Robey Pointer <robey at lag.net> wrote:
>> If anyone has suggestions, comments, flames, patches, etc, I'm open
>> for them.
> I've only taken a quick look over the code, but a few things stood
> 1. the code seems to be written to only handle a single branch. If I
> have multiple branches, is the idea to set up multiple Loggerhead
> instances for each branch? Do you plan to support multiple branches
> in the same Loggerhead instance in the future?
That's my next task, to support multiple branches. I think it should
be straightforward, with a little rearranging.
> 2. the up to date checks for the cache seems to be based on whether
> the length of the linear revision history is the same in the branch
> and cache. If I uncommit in a branch then make a new commit, it looks
> like it will consider the cache up to date. It'd probably be better
> to save the head revision ID in the cache and compare the that
> instead. What do you think?
Obviously, you're right. :) I'm going to do that right now, while I
refactor that caching code. I think if the sizes are the same *and*
the head revision is in the cache, then it's up to date.
More information about the bazaar