[RFC] Removing the inventory concept from Bazaar.

[Robert Collins]

On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 15:55 +0100, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 09:22 -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> > Inspired by Robert's post, I started thinking about improving our
> > scaling in large trees.  I decided to take the extreme approach of
> > removing inventories as a concept, to see what broke.
> > 
> > It seems to work, so I've started a draft spec here:
> > http://bazaar-vcs.org/DraftSpecs/NoInventory
> 
> Your third assumption is that you can add a noop record to every
> unaffected knit index on commit
> 
> Won't this mean that commit time will be proportional to size of tree
> not number of modifications?
> 
> Also, won't this mean that a push will always have to update every knit
> index? Seriously increasing the potential number of round trips?

It does, but its good to be thinking outside the 'box' at this point.
DVCS is a wicked problem and we have enough experience now that we
should be able to really identify what we win from each design point and
what is not overall a win. The goal for me of London is to refine (not
replace) our grass roots design - and validate or choose replacements
for all the layers up from the bottom.

That is, I'm not proposing anything like removing fileids - which are
part of our core - but full-tree inventories (just the management of the
fileids:metadata within the tree), knits, apis (e.g. Inventory), all the
way up are open for debate.... as long as we have the analysis of what
each operation needs we should be able to have a focused session - which
could get wild out and whacky, but wont be a free-spinning crash :).

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: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20070509/022dc98d/attachment.pgp