1.6 plans

[Ian Clatworthy]

Martin Pool wrote:

> Is there anything else, or any objection to the above?

I'd actually like the content filtering stuff to land in 1.6 *if
possible* because that would then allow various plugins (like eol)
to begin to appear. I'm not sure though if we're close enough to
agreement in order to land it and for everyone to be happy, so
the right thing to do socially is to delay it. OTOH, if the changes
needs to land it are small, it would be a shame if it missed the cut.

There are two primary issues IMO:

1. the API plugin authors use to register filters
2. what impact the changes make when no filters are enabled.

I'm happy with the abstraction in place for the first, though it
may be more abstraction than needed.

I'm yet to measure the latter. IIRC, the "don't bother checking
the SHAs because we know the sizes differ" optimisation in iter_changes
will no longer apply. I wonder how much difference that will make
in practice?

We've made some great progress on win32 support this release. Adding
the content filtering to the core so that an eol plugin can be tried
out by early adopters would be well received by many I think. I
appreciate that my content filtering patch isn't production
strength yet. If we think the impact on those not using filters is
acceptable though, I think it's worthy of inclusion as an experimental
feature.

Thoughts?

Ian C.