1.9rc1 countdown

[Martin Pool]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Martin Albisetti <argentina at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:
>>> * 1.9 format (uses btree indexes) -- and make this the default?
>>
>> I know this has been discussed somewhere, but I can't find it.
>> Is this format rich-root?
>
> It still has rich-root as a separate format, but this issue was
> mentioned in that thread.  I'd like to just make it rich-root and ask
> people to upgrade, but I'd like to understand if there would be any
> deleterious effects in doing so.

One effect is that upgrading to rich-root is relatively slower than
just updating the indexes or other similar transitions, since we need
to update all inventories.

I spoke to Robert about this briefly on irc.

 * We should check that not only are inventories updated correctly
when moving in to a rich-root form, but also their sha is updated in
the revision object.
 * People may have repositories in the wild that (incorrectly, maybe
through using very old buggy versions?) mix rich-root and non content,
and we should ensure check/reconcile will detect and fix this.  Robert
has a patch for check but not for reconcile.

<lifeless> and yes, while the default isn't rich root, I think there
are clear drawbacks to adding a new format that is a trapdoor for
users on the default

I can't parse that.  If we made the default format rich-root, then it
would be the default.

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>