On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 11:20:40PM +0000, Philip Martin wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> writes:
>
> > What, exactly, stands in the way of us branching for 1.7 stabilization?
>
> Performance, particulary on network disks, is still a concern. If this
> requires using fewer, bigger transactions then we really want to do that
> before we branch.
>
> The biggest wcng feature that needs work is that revert doesn't really
> work on tree changes. Some of the recursive reverts go through invalid
> wcng database states before reaching a valid final state (so an
> interrupt would be bad), and some of the non-recursive reverts leave the
> database in an invalid state.
>
> A related issue: we are bad at detecting invalid wcng database states.
> I suppose this could be considered a good thing as it allows the client
> to muddle through in some cases, but if we produced hard errors then
> perhaps we would already have fixed the code that produces invalid
> databases.
>
> There are areas that would benefit from review:
>
> - Actual-only nodes, i.e. certain types of tree conflicts. I hacked
> read_info to get something working, but the API was never really
> intended for actual-only nodes.
> - Granularity of transactions
> - Use of workqueues
What do you think about the query-per-node performance problems?
I'm surprised you don't mention them.
> There are small issues that need work. We could fix these after
> branching but obviously it's more efficient to do it before branching:
>
> - timestamps don't self-repair when no mods are detected
> - cleanup doesn't fix timestamps
> - wc-to-wc copy breaks timestamps
> - revert working not-present
> - delete a child in a replace needs to reset some database columns
> - operations like mv/rm on a tree with an actual-only node
> - upgrade 1.6 wc that contains replaced directory (as produced by merge)
> - the redirect regression tests fail using serf
> - XFAILs
Wow, nice list. Can you file issues for these points and describe them in a
little more detail in those issues? That might give people who aren't already
waist-deep in wc-ng something to chew on.
Thanks,
Stefan
Received on 2011-01-07 00:51:25 CET