maria-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: [GSoC] Accepted student ready to work : )
On Apr 28, Kristian Nielsen wrote:
> Sergei Golubchik <serg@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > note, that two *different* revisions got the same revno! And the changes
> > from the first revision are completely and totally lost, there is no way
> > to retrieve from from anywhere.
> But note that in main trees (5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, and 10.0), this cannot occur,
> since we have set the append_revision_only option (or "append_revisions_only",
> can't remember). This prevents a revision number from changing, once pushed.
> So in main trees, the revision number _should_ in fact be unique.
Yes. I omitted that detail, because I hope that we can find a solution
that works for all trees without checks that only work for main trees.
But, of course, as the last resort we can rely on append_revisions_only.
> > Revision-id is the only unique identifier for a revision, unfortunately,
> > it's not logged in these tables. I believe we'll change buildbot so that
> > revid would be logged in the future. But so far it wasn't needed, and
> > this is one of the defects in the data.
> I actually wanted to log it when I wrote the code. The problem is that the
> revision-id is not available to buildbot when the change is received from
> Launchpad. I even asked the bzr/launchpad developers to provide the revid: so
> it could be logged. The answer I got was that it is a deliberate feature to
> hide the revision id :-(
> So I don't think we will get revid in Buildbot. Of course, if we go to git, we
> will not have this problem anymore, as it always uses a consistent, stable
> revision identifier.
Oh, I see, thanks.
Git - yes, that's not an issue. Bzr - perhaps we could figure out
something regardless. May be get the revid on the tarbake builder - it
needs the tree anyway. Or use fake revids. Or something. It is not a
showstopper for this project, we can think about it later, when we
finish the research part and get to the integration.