> On Mar 26, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.sz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems like we're shooting ourselves in the foot by consolidating all > markers into a single local store. Have we ever considered having a separate > store per remote or at least preserving the illusion of a separate store > (e.g. by recording metadata such as "markers N to M pulled from X")? This > would preserve properties of strict ordering within each peer. There are > still problems of figuring out the relative ordering between markers produced > on different peers (with different clocks). But without online coordination > at the time of marker generation, this is *impossible* to achieve. The best > you can do is preserve strict ordering within each source and exchange/record > generation numbers (e.g. marker number/offset) to attempt to resolve relative > ordering and to drive "merging."
I’ve considered a similar line of thinking for prunes (basically having “local” markers and “exchanged” markers, and by default not propagating prunes). Maybe it’s worth revisiting. _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
