Code review comment for lp:~jameinel/bzr/1.16-commit-fulltext

John A Meinel (jameinel) wrote :

Hash: SHA1


> I think we're at the point of maturity in bzr that it makes sense to
> spend a small amount of time saying 'whats the cleanest way to do X',
> and then talk about how to get there.
> At the moment, expanding VF's API doesn't seem desirable, or the best
> way to be tackling the problem. I think there should be precisely one
> way to add texts to a VF, and that should be as small and fast as we can
> make it.
> -Rob

We're also blocking on a fairly significant win *today* because of a
potential desire to rewrite a lot of code to make something slightly
cleaner. (Which is something that has been a misfeature of the bzr
project for a *long* time.)

I'm not saying we shouldn't do this, I'm just pointing out the issue.

*For now* I don't feel like rewriting the entire insert_record_stream
stack just to get this in. So I'll leave this pending for now. (More
important is to actually get GC stacking working over bzr+ssh, etc.)

I'm also not sure that getting rid of the "add_this_text_to_the_repo" is
really a net win. Having to write code like:
vf.get_record_stream([one_key], 'unordered',

just to get a single text out is ugly. Not to mention prone to raising
bad exceptions like "AbsentContentFactory has no attribute
.get_bytes_as()", rather than something sane like "NoSuchRevision".
Having to do the same thing during *insert* is just as ugly.

I know you wanted to push people towards multi requests, and I
understand why. I'm not sure that completely removing the convenience
functions is a complete solution, though.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


« Back to merge proposal