Repository format

[Ian Clatworthy]

Karl Fogel wrote:
> Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at vernstok.nl> writes:
>> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 17:07 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:
>>> We now have the repository formats 1.12, 1.6 and 1.9.  Which is the
>>> right one to choose?
>> 1.6 is faster than earlier formats, 1.9 supports stacking, 1.12 should
>> not be used in production (it's called 1.12-preview or somesuch I
>> think)

> (And not 1.12-preview because it might change before release.  But once
> 1.12 is released, the new "best" answer is 1.12, I presume.)

1.12-preview was introduced in 1.11 on the assumption that it would be
ready for production use in 1.12. It's a *small* change to the working tree
format only (some additional "supports_xxx" methods mainly), enabling it to
support two pending features:

* content filtering - our answer to EOL conversion, keywords, etc.
* filtered views - a git-index like feature that's a stepping stone to
  partial trees

*However*, neither of these features have been reviewed yet, so it's
most unlikely 1.12-preview - an experimental format currently - will be
made non-experimental (and renamed to 1.x) in 1.12.

> What's the policy on breaking compatibility and make the default format
> be the highest released format?  Is 1.12 planning to do that, or are we
> waiting for the brisbane-core changes to land?

I was hoping to make "1.12" the default shortly after release. We normally
wait a while to ensure any issues are ironed out but, in the case of "1.12",
the changes *to the format* are minor enough that we could adopt it as a
default with minimal risk IMO.

Ian C.