Thanks for the update, Julian. Great that you were able to make progress at all on such a difficult problem; bummer that Reality showed her dark side. But, as you said, it's version control -- nothing is ever really lost!
On 08/18/2010 08:11 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > On Wed, 2010-08-18, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> What's the status of obliterate? > > Heh. I started down a path that looked promising initially but became > ever more difficult. The parts that are checked in are the easy parts - > hook script support and some ability to remove node-revs from the > repository in only a really trivial case that's not often useful. Now > that I'm concentrating on the essential WC-NG task, reluctantly I have > left this work aside. > > Philip Martin had a good idea for doing a simpler kind of obliteration, > tried out on the "obliterate-like-deltify" branch, which works in what > it does and appears to be more likely to be feasible to implement fully. > That certainly deserves more attention. > >> I get the sense that it exists in our codebase, for all practical purposes, >> in name only. If that's true, and if that's the state it's expected to be >> in when 1.7 ships, then I'd really, really like to just see the feature not >> ship at all. We don't have to can all the code, but certainly de-publicize >> the lot of it (no pre-obliterate.tmpl hook creation, no obliterate-related >> public APIs, etc.) >> >> Some might say I'm letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, here. I'd >> disagree, but openly admit that I'm trying to let the tolerable be the enemy >> of the barely-working. >> >> But maybe I'm misremembering the current utility of the feature? > > You're about spot on. It's not in a fit state to release and I'm no > longer working on it. > > I'll go and pull the existing code out some time in the next few weeks. > We can always resurrect any parts of it that we want to work on again. > > - Julian > > -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
