[RFC] Should we rewrite nested-trees or our formats or punt?

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 17:25 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> >> John has proposed instead that WT.iter_changes would always emit tree
> >> references, so that we could run commit in the subtrees.  This means
> >> that iter_changes is emitting things that it has no reason to believe
> >> have changed, and I think it further confuses that API.
> > 
> > I agree; its very special case and would require all code using
> > iter_changes to know explicitly about nested trees. At best thats
> > disruptive to our code today.
> 
> Actually, I propose more that "iter_changes()" can return entries that
> with a "maybe" status. So for files that miss the hash cache, and for
> tree-references (since we haven't recursed into them).

From that perspective, I find myself liking your proposal more.

So its not 'tree references are always returned', its 'tree references
in a working tree a stat-cache misses always'.

Rob
-------------- 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/20090327/ad468ab7/attachment.pgp