On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 11:20:40PM +0000, Philip Martin wrote: > "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpil...@collab.net> writes: > > > What, exactly, stands in the way of us branching for 1.7 stabilization? > > Performance, particulary on network disks, is still a concern. If this > requires using fewer, bigger transactions then we really want to do that > before we branch. > > The biggest wcng feature that needs work is that revert doesn't really > work on tree changes. Some of the recursive reverts go through invalid > wcng database states before reaching a valid final state (so an > interrupt would be bad), and some of the non-recursive reverts leave the > database in an invalid state. > > A related issue: we are bad at detecting invalid wcng database states. > I suppose this could be considered a good thing as it allows the client > to muddle through in some cases, but if we produced hard errors then > perhaps we would already have fixed the code that produces invalid > databases. > > There are areas that would benefit from review: > > - Actual-only nodes, i.e. certain types of tree conflicts. I hacked > read_info to get something working, but the API was never really > intended for actual-only nodes. > - Granularity of transactions > - Use of workqueues
What do you think about the query-per-node performance problems? I'm surprised you don't mention them. > There are small issues that need work. We could fix these after > branching but obviously it's more efficient to do it before branching: > > - timestamps don't self-repair when no mods are detected > - cleanup doesn't fix timestamps > - wc-to-wc copy breaks timestamps > - revert working not-present > - delete a child in a replace needs to reset some database columns > - operations like mv/rm on a tree with an actual-only node > - upgrade 1.6 wc that contains replaced directory (as produced by merge) > - the redirect regression tests fail using serf > - XFAILs Wow, nice list. Can you file issues for these points and describe them in a little more detail in those issues? That might give people who aren't already waist-deep in wc-ng something to chew on. Thanks, Stefan
