RFC: faster check

Robert Collins robertc at robertcollins.net
Wed Jan 14 02:24:10 GMT 2009

On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 00:06 -0200, Martin Albisetti wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Robert Collins
> <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> > So check is currently fairly slow and uses a lot of memory. I'm
> > wondering if we can make it faster. As a start point I'd like to see if
> > the following is considered to be an accurate assessment of what check()
> > is meant to do:
> A more high-level question is: does check ensure that the branch works 100%?
> I ask this, because if check turns out to be faster, I think we should
> add a --delete-backup-dir to "bzr upgrade", which first runs check and
> if it succeeds, it deletes the backup repo.

I'm not sure I see the connection. check is always going to be at least
as slow as making a full clone(). And clearly, check() can only check
for problems we anticipate, so its almost always possible for a new form
of error to occur. I don't think getting rid of the backup during
upgrade is a good idea whether or not check() works. There may be
multiple reasons folk want to rollback (not the least of which is
upgrades past trapdoors). And it doesn't seem related to check speed at
all, or am I missing something?

GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090114/c3a28f7e/attachment.pgp 

More information about the bazaar mailing list