On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 14:16 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2017, at 14:15, Boris Feld <boris.f...@octobus.net> > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 14:11 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 07:55:22PM +0200, Boris Feld wrote: > > > > # HG changeset patch > > > > # User Boris Feld <boris.f...@octobus.net> > > > > # Date 1495197862 -7200 > > > > # Fri May 19 14:44:22 2017 +0200 > > > > # Node ID 985d753d4f5799f2a332140adedb06efd465d62b > > > > # Parent 63214f4d9a766761259b650539eede424413e6a2 > > > > # EXP-Topic obs-cache > > > > obsstore: pass a repository object for initialisation > > > > > > > > The cache will needs a repository object (to grab a 'vfs'), so > > > > we > > > > pass a repo object instead of just the 'svfs' and we grab the > > > > 'svfs' > > > > from there. > > > > > > I suspect I'll get to it, but why does this cache want to know > > > about > > > anything outside of svfs? > > > > > > I'm pretty uncomfortable (architecturally) with passing all of > > > `self` > > > into the cache layer. > > > > The obscache need the vfs and not the svfs because caches lives in > > .hg > > and not in .hg/store. > > > > Passing the whole repo and grabbing what we need seemed simpler. > > It's simpler today, but more of a potential headache later if someone > decides to just retain the whole repo in the cache. I'd rather not do > it.
I understand the danger. Should we pass vfs and svfs explicitly in the V2 then? _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel