1.9rc1 countdown

[Alexander Belchenko]

John Arbash Meinel пишет:
> Martin Pool wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Martin Albisetti <argentina at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:
>>>>> * 1.9 format (uses btree indexes) -- and make this the default?
>>>> I know this has been discussed somewhere, but I can't find it.
>>>> Is this format rich-root?
>>> It still has rich-root as a separate format, but this issue was
>>> mentioned in that thread.  I'd like to just make it rich-root and ask
>>> people to upgrade, but I'd like to understand if there would be any
>>> deleterious effects in doing so.
>> One effect is that upgrading to rich-root is relatively slower than
>> just updating the indexes or other similar transitions, since we need
>> to update all inventories.
> 
>> I spoke to Robert about this briefly on irc.
> 
>>  * We should check that not only are inventories updated correctly
>> when moving in to a rich-root form, but also their sha is updated in
>> the revision object.
>>  * People may have repositories in the wild that (incorrectly, maybe
>> through using very old buggy versions?) mix rich-root and non content,
>> and we should ensure check/reconcile will detect and fix this.  Robert
>> has a patch for check but not for reconcile.
> 
>> <lifeless> and yes, while the default isn't rich root, I think there
>> are clear drawbacks to adding a new format that is a trapdoor for
>> users on the default
> 
>> I can't parse that.  If we made the default format rich-root, then it
>> would be the default.
> 
> 
> So one of the problems with upgrading to rich-root is that when someone
> commits in a rich-root repo, that patch cannot be applied to a
> non-rich-root repository.
> 
> We've run into this in the past when people were experimenting, and
> accidentally upgraded something to rich-root. They had to downgrade, and
> do another commit before we could merge there changes.
> 
> I believe what Robert is saying is that "I think there are drawbacks to
> making a trapdoor format the default."
> 
> For example, once rich-root is default doing:
> 
> bzr init-repo .
> bzr branch http://upstream
> 
> Will convert to the new format, and they will no longer be able to merge
> their changes back into "upstream" without upgrading it.

It seems like dead end.