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

Robert Collins (lifeless) wrote :

On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 13:36 +0000, John A Meinel wrote:

Meta: I'm really confused vis-a-vis reviews and blocking. All I've done
here is *ask* your opinion on reusing insert_record_stream and provided
answers to some of the technical issues you see with that. I haven't set
a review status of veto or resubmit - and I don't think I've signalled
in anyway that I would. So I don't know why you're feeling blocked.

> > 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 think we often ask the question - and thats important. Sometimes the
answer is 'yes we should fix the deep issue' and sometimes its 'lets do
it with the least possible changes'. Some things do get stuck, and thats
a shame - I've had that happen to concepts I've proposed, and seen it
happen to other peoples ideas.

> 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 think it would be a good idea to make the new method private then,
because of the open question hanging over it.

> 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',
> True).next().get_bytes_as('fulltext')
> 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.

And yet, single read/single write methods are terrible for networking,
and commit over the network is something we currently support - but
can't make even vaguely fast until commit no long uses add_text_*. With
respect to exceptions, we actually do want different exceptions at
different places, so I think it has on balance cleaned some stuff up, in

> 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.

I'd like us to get to the point where the core code doesn't do network
hostile things. Beyond that - well, I'm ok if plugins and library users
want to shoot themselves in the foot.


« Back to merge proposal