Plans for Loggerhead

[Michael Hudson]

Robert Collins wrote:

> I'd be extremely wary of overlapping with bzrlib here; fundamentally the
> basics of loggerhead should be very thinly layered on bzrlib, if
> something is too slow to show to a user in web time using bzrlib
> directly, anything added on top is just complexity that will interfere
> as bzrlib gets fixed to be fast enough. This has happened a few times
> already - and when I look at loggerhead performance on brisbane core its
> mainly using convoluted approaches on top of bzrlib api's that are
> slower than they should be on production branches.

Revision numbering is the thing that really causes pain.  Make that take
a handful of milliseconds per revid, and life for loggerhead would get
much, much, much easier.  But I'm not aware of any plans that might lead
to this happening any time soon.

Cheers,
mwh