Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >> So, ideally, we should decouple the
> >> concept of a wcroot from the path. We could tie it to a wc_id instead.
> >> This would allow us to use a single wc.db to manage several wcroots,
> >> one for the parent working copy, and more for any externals within
> >> this working copy.
>
> I've always thought we could handle it a different way: the externals
> are just part of the same WC as the directories which contain them,
> it's just the repos_id and/or repos_relpath which happen to point to a
> disjoint location. In other words, externals are nothing more than
> switched paths, save for the fact that their existence is communicable
> to other clients via the properties (whereas "pure" switched paths are
> single-client-only).
>
> Since all the plumbing for switched paths already exists, we should
> just be able to reuse it for the externals cases. In fact, as
> currently implemented, switch can do some *really* interesting things,
> which Philip could probably better illuminate than me.
>
> In short, I don't think the answer is a set of wcroots but rather one
> wcroot with a set of nodes (possibly pointing to various repos).
+1 to that. In fact, I wrote about that idea a while back:
Subject: [RFC] 'External' and 'Switched': common ground
From: Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:54:09 +0100
<http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-08/0529.shtml>
There are a few intentional differences in the way external directories
(and files) behave, compared with switched nodes, but it looks far more
sensible to implement them that way.
- Julian
Received on 2011-02-23 17:27:29 CET