Daniel Shahaf wrote: >> Stick with the idea, for now, that we do need to handle that "restore" >> part of update. > >Can we deprecate it?
People already argued for keeping it. No need to spend more time discussing that now, as I pointed out the effort required to make it work this new way (fetch at point of use, for want of a better term) doesn't look large. >> [...] next a similar pattern applies to the "normal" part of the >> update (everything it does after "restore"). Obviously we need the >> normal part of update > >Yes, but for the "deltas" part of update we already mostly DTRT, don't we? > >- If the file is not modified, [...] > >- If the file is locally modified, then by design, we need to end up > with a pristine for it. Right now we'll download BASE, and then > [...] What am I missing? You're missing the case where the file is locally modified, and is in the tree scope of the update request, but no update is found in the repo. Currently we download its base before executing the business logic of update, so before we know that we're not going to need the base to complete this update request. - Julian
