[RFC] Represent Loom threads using branches
james at jamesh.id.au
Wed May 7 06:30:11 BST 2008
2008/5/7 Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net>:
> On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 11:19 +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
> > 2008/5/1 Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net>:
> > > On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 08:25 -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > I've been using the loom plugin pretty heavily, and I still feel like
> > > > loom threads should be branches.
> > >
> > > My initial feelings are this is going to be hugely more complex for
> > > managing the loom history, and have significant performance implications
> > > too. (I expect large loom scenarios to number in the hundreds of
> > > patches). It will also remove the deliberate simplification of threads
> > > (which is not an implementation detail, its a deliberate design
> > > decision).
> > >
> > > I will read your mail in more detail over the next couple of days.
> > In one of my uses of looms so far, I have been pushing individual
> > threads to separate locations.
> Could you enlarge on why you need to do this ?
1. Some of the branches I've got in the loom started life elsewhere
and I want to keep those locations up to date.
2. The code review process being used for the project (Storm) is to
register the branch with the associated bug report. I suppose I could
do that with a loom branch, but then the reviewers would need to have
the loom plugin and I'd need to tell them which thread(s) I want them
More information about the bazaar