Nested tree support - current status

[Joshua Judson Rosen]

On 10/22/19 5:41 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 05:22:35PM -0400, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote:
>> On 10/14/19 12:49 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>> So we're making steady progress on nested tree support.
>>>
>>> The bulk of work was actually in getting rid in file-id based lookups, since they can potentially involve opening all subtrees. These are now mostly gone.
>>
>> Wait, what? I liked file-IDs.... They are (were?) bzr's way of not throwing away
>> the information that I explicitly gave it when I renamed files....
>>
>> That git immediately throws away info about renames thinking that it knows
>> better than I do about what I did is one of the sore points that has kept me using bzr
>> all these years.
>>
>> We're not actually losing proper rename-tracking as a feature in brz, are we?
>
> File ids are still there, and used for rename tracking in Bazaar
> branches.
> 
> File-id based /lookups/ in the higher level API are gone. This does
> not have any impact on rename detection.
> 
> File-id based lookups are bad for nested trees because you potentially
> have to open all nested trees to resolve a file id.
> 
> When inferring renames, the Bazaar format still uses file ids
> to detect renames *within each tree*. For the Git format there is
> currently no rename support, but will eventually support content-based
> rename detection. For the Subversion format, we'll use the copy/delete
> information that Subversion provides.

Cool!

Thanks for the clarification, Jelmer :)

-- 
Connect with me on the GNU social network! <https://status.hackerposse.com/rozzin>
Not on the network? Ask me for more info!