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

Robert Collins (lifeless) wrote :

On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 04:09 +0000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 13:36 +0000, John A Meinel wrote:
> >
> >
> >> 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 agree this is a problem that we need to sort out. I occasionally put
> and leave useful code in plugins simply because it can take weeks of
> effort/debate to get APIs extended in bzrlib. If it only takes a few
> hours to write the methods in the first place, it's more productive for
> me to just leave the code out of the core and cut-and-paste it when I
> need it again.

We don't have a good place for experiments ' in core'. And one possible
answer is that we don't need one - thats what we have plugins for. For
instance, I note that your revno cache got rewritten to be significantly
different as you learnt more about the problem. I think this is healthy,
as long as you don't get blocked.

> >> *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.
> >
> >
> That sounds like a reasonable compromise. The other way to look at the
> problem though is this:
> "Is this new API a step forward with medium-to-long term value?"

I think thats what the design aspect of the review seeks to answer; but
its often hard to tell.

> > 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.
> >
> Right. But there are genuine use cases for having easy-to-use,
> appropriate-locally-only APIs, e.g. import tools. I see no problems with
> having such APIs *provided* the docstrings point the reader to more
> network-friendly alternatives.

In this particular case I'd like to have them as adapters; such as
versionedfile.add_text(versioned_files, bytes, ....):
    for details in
versioned_files.insert_record_stream([FullTextContentFactory(bytes, ...)])
        return details

or whatever. That would separate them cleanly from the core API, prevent
them varying per implementation (easing testing) and make them not the
default way of working.

> FWIW, if John's proposed API is faster than the current commonly-used
> one, then it sounds like a one-or-two line change to fast-import for me
> to take advantage of it. I appreciate that you want fast-import moving
> towards using CommitBuilder instead of it's own CommitImporter class but
> that's a much bigger change (and it's some time away).

I think it would be fine to use a private method in fast-import:
fast-import is trying for maximum speed, and you are keeping a close eye
on it.


« Back to merge proposal