indygreg added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4701#71766, @mharbison72 wrote: > Not related to this patch specifically, but if you're redesigning verify APIs... That's good context - and context I hadn't considered! My immediate goal with reworking verify is to move low-level code out of verify and into storage. Getting the interface "correct" will be a later step. From what you said, I could easily imagine us wanting to add different verify "modes." e.g. controls to specify whether fulltext data should be verified. And maybe something so LFS can tell revlog's verify method to ignore revisions with the extstored flag so LFS can do something reasonable. Tons of possibilities here. If you want to have a go at refactoring things after the patches in this stack land, I'll happily review those changes! REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4701 To: indygreg, #hg-reviewers Cc: mharbison72, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
