So many repo formats
andrew.bennetts at canonical.com
Mon Nov 17 22:38:30 GMT 2008
Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> So, what's the downside?
> > Upgrading from a non-rich-root format to a rich-root format is more
> > resource-intensive and one-way (you can't convert from a
> > rich-root-format to a non-rich-root-format, since that would lose data).
> I don't understand why its one way: losing data is usually the easier path.
Because then you'd have two revisions claiming to have the same revision
ID, but with different data. That's a fairly fundamental constraint
that we cannot break. So it's not possible to store rich-root revisions
in a non-rich-root repository
More information about the bazaar