[RFC] new format 1.12 (1.11?) enabling EOL & filtered views

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>> Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> 
>>> To be more precise, I'd like to decouple the introduction of this
>>> from the CHK format related work by doing the following:
>>> 1. Adding 2 new experimental formats called 1.12preview and
>>>    1.12preview-rich-root respectively. These formats will be
>>>    the same as their 1.9 counterparts except that the WT will
>>>    be (the new) WT5, not WT4.
>> The standard way of introducing a format that is "experimental" is to
>> put it into the "--development" series. Say as a "--development5"
>> format. I don't have a strict problem with your naming, though I may
>> have gone 1.12-preview...
> 
> I'm certainly aware of the --development path. In this case, I think
> there's very little development to do format wise: the new format
> is simply a marker that certain capabilities are enabled. I'm also
> wary about confusing people, e.g. using the name development5
> implicitly suggests (to me at least) something that builds on
> development4 and that isn't the case here.

As the only people using --development are going to be people who know a
*lot* about bzr, I'm not worried about that confusion.

> 
>>> 2. Resubmitting the content filtering patch so that it will
>>>    only work with WT5 trees.
>>> 3. Submitting my filtered views patch.
>> Technically the functionality should land before the format, so that we
>> don't have a someone running a bzr release that doesn't have the
>> functionality, but does have the format.
>>
>> That said, --development seems like a fine place to break compatibility
>> *inside* of a release, so I don't think it has to happen in that order.
>> I also realize that any manual testing is hard to do if you don't have a
>> format that lets you do the testing :).
> 
> Precisely. :-) The new formats will be marked as experimental until
> the functionality lands so I think the ordering is ok. We certainly
> can't land the functionality before the format in any way I can see.
> 
> Ian C.
> 

I think you could land the code that implements the functionality,
without having it hooked into an actual WT yet. Regardless, landing a
format for you to work with is fine. I'd still prefer -dev5, but as you
are the one implementing the code, you get to make the final decision.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAklH9D0ACgkQJdeBCYSNAANQ3gCgxXVXOcf8xQO5DykTc0HyD/sI
Tp8An0t8ZpybgzhyZfKc+As2sHthfryp
=BH3Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----