On 10/24/05, Peter N. Lundblad <peter@famlundblad.se> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>
> > > > If the wc-propcaching branch is merged to trunk without a WC format
> > > bump, would working copies created by our current trunk client still
> > > work? What would happen?
>
> > They have to: even 1.0 working copies have to keep working, so the
> > branch must provide a fallback for information not being available.
>
> Yes, they have to. But, how does the WC lib know that it will need to
> upgraade the WC?
Kind of depends on the design? (which we don't have atm)
> Say I have a WC that has been used by our current trunk code. That means
> it was bumped right after wc-replacements was merged.
>
> Now, we work on the wc-propcaching branch, which means we will have a
> non-trivial upgrade. By that, I mean that we need to rewrite files, not
> just bump the format number. When we merge wc-propcaching, and I try to
> use my pre-propcaching WC, it needs to be upgraded again. That won't
> happen, because the format nubmer wasn't changed. But the WC code will
> think we have the new format and assume it... Mess, crap, horror...
> > > You've a good point there. My first reaction was the same as Erik's,
> > but
> > > by bumping in two steps will help our developers that build from
> > trunk.
>
> > Ok. Does that mean we will be doing double increments on function
> > prototypes too from now? I liked the 'trunk is for developers' regime.
>
> Erik, that's totally unrelated.
Ok, ok, you're right.
> The WC format number is not very vissible and they are cheap.
You're right there too.
> We don't always need to bump it for a new change
> between releases, but in this case, I think it will save trunk users some
> trouble.
Let's see what problems it creates if we don't when we're ready to
merge back and discuss then. Agreed?
bye,
Erik.
Received on Mon Oct 24 21:57:12 2005