Re: Tracking "branch heads"

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Michael Haggerty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> +
>> +      branch_heads[(id, name)] = svn_commit.revnum
>> +
>
> Shouldn't this rather be "branch_heads[id] = (svn_commit.revnum, name)"?
>  I don't see much purpose to requiring both id and name to look up an
> entry in the map...

Oh.  Yeah.  Of course.  Good point.

> For that matter, you could just write "branch_heads[lod] =
> svn_commit.revnum", since LinesOfDevelopment are hashable.  Then when
> outputting the results you can add the extra information.

I was worried about the pickle growing madly out of control, e.g. if a
LineOfDevelopment references other objects, which reference other
objects, etc.  Pickling base types is safer in this regard.  Plus
there's the testability thing: how much sense does a lone
LineOfDevelopment object make outside of its usual runtime context?  I
would hope it will work, but did not try it.  Do you think it'll work?

>> +    # Write the branch_heads dict.
>> +    file = open(artifact_manager.get_temp_file(config.SVN_BRANCH_HEADS), 'wb')
>> +    cPickle.dump(branch_heads, file, -1)
>> +    file.close()
>
> Then this could become
>
>    cPickle.dump(
>        [(lod.id, lod.name, revnum) for (lod, revnum) in branch_heads],
>        file, -1,
>        )
>
> In other words, there is no need to commit to which direction the
> dictionary should run, because there is no need to store this as a
> dictionary at all.

Ahh, yes, good idea.  I think I like it.

>> Of note: I do *not* use branch creation events to update branch_heads.
>>  I have a patch that adds that, but:
>>
>>   * it ensures that CVS branches that never actually had any commits
>> are present in
>>     branch_heads... but it's not clear if that is a good thing or a bad thing
>>   * it complicates matters by recording "split" CVS branches under two distinct
>>     LOD IDs
>>
>> Think about it.  I'll send the second patch if you want, but it feels
>> wrong to me.
>
> The user has a chance to change commitless branches into tags.  If he
> hasn't, it might be because it is a legitimate branch that has been
> created but not yet used.

"The user" in this case being who?  The person who controls
cvs2svn.options and runs cvs2svn?

> I don't understand your second point.  What do you mean by "split" CVS
> branch here?

Branches that are created twice and end up getting two fixup commits
in the svn/hg/whatever output.  I noticed that when that happens, we
get two distinct LOD objects (different ID) describing the same CVS
branch.

Greg

------------------------------------------------------
http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1667&dsMessageId=2431854

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [[email protected]].