On 11/16/05, Branko Èibej <brane@xbc.nu> wrote:
> I still don't see what the difference is, semantically, between "replay
> revision BAR" and "update from / at BAR-1 to / at BAR". I understand
> that the exact datasets that are sent back today are different, but I
> still think that replay can be seen as simply a special case of update.
I agree that it seems tempting to say "why can't we express this all
in terms of one API", but as clkao and ghudson point out, there are
complicated issues that would need to be resolved with regard to what
the behavior would be in many common cases. The fact that diff and
update need to work for multiple revision ranges introduces a number
of problems that a simple replay API just doesn't have to care about.
> The cost of actually changing update in such a way that it can be used
> to replace replay might be large, perhaps too large to bother at this
> point. But in the long run, I think it would make sense to at least
> investigate the possibility.
Now that I've spent some time looking at the reporter code and
thinking about how I would add support for replay-like output, I'm
pretty much totally convinced that it will be both complex to
implement even the simple cases and difficult to determine what the
correct behavior should be in the nontrivial cases, which will, of
course, be even harder to implement.
-garrett
Received on Wed Nov 16 19:24:52 2005