Code review comment for lp:~jameinel/bzr/2.4-transform-cache-sha-740932

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/06/2011 02:40 AM, Martin Pool wrote:
> Thanks for tackling this.
>
> I wonder if we can take a further step in this direction still within
> the current format by just making sure we never actually hash things
> from disk: it's enough to just say that they're either identical to
> the current tree, or they're unknown. Recording hashes different to
> those in any of the basis trees has very little value.

I think first we need to establish that they *are* identical to the
basis. The next is actually getting the higher levels to understand
"iter_maybe_changes". So that you can understand that the values you are
getting *might* be changed, but it isn't guaranteed.

>
> I don't see why we would be recording or checking the stat values of
> directories at all. I don't think it can save us any time.
>
> Martin

I have the feeling the code just doesn't pay attention to type. We need
to call "update_entry", in general, because a directory could have
become a file, etc. I agree that I don't think we need to specifically
be caching the stat information for it.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk2cEA0ACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMuQwCdHXstnwyLMSJS2z7smu/Pxr9E
XoMAniv+lpEtzZcD5FA7eQ/rBz5Tg7tr
=gM1C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----