Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Bazaar 1.3 preview

[Aaron Bentley]

David Allouche wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 01:09 +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
>
> > I didn't try baz 1.3 preview, but I would like to know about the status
> > of several issues.
> >
> > 1) Don't you think "tree-id" command is misnamed? Use "tree-rev" name
> > if you feel "tree-revision" is not short enough (I don't feel so).
>
>
> I concur.

Yeah, me too.  Though as I've mentioned, tree-rev is misleading too, 
because it's really the comparison revision, and your tree may be 
utterly different from that revision.  More like tree-last-revision.

> > 2) The flat-revision subdirectory structure in ~/.arch-cache leads to
> > huge directories, this is not scalable.

The arch cache doesn't list directories, so the O(n^2) directory listing 
time on certain silly filesystems doesn't affect it.  In what was is it 
not scalable?

> > Is not version/patchlevel
> > structure more balanced

For my money, it doesn't solve anything.  There are archives with 
thousands of revisions per version, and archives with huge numbers of 
versions.

And of course, it's no help at all for archives with one version.

> and more consistent?

The Cache was there first.  Why should it be the one to change?

> I agree, the arch-cache hierarchy should use versions containership
> because:
>
>       * the cache hierarchy groups revisions by archive names, so there
>         is already a coupling with the namespace hierarchy.

The reason there's an archive directory and a revision directory is 
because a slash is used as a separator in fully-qualified revision 
names, and I didn't feel like pika-escaping it.

>       * just grouping revisions by archives leads to too big
>         directories, that's not a good use filesystem storage.

If you really want to solve the too-big directories issue, you'll need a 
more sophisicated approach than just splitting the revision name off the 
end.

> Baz hackers?

Aaron
--
Aaron Bentley
Director of Technology
Panometrics, Inc.