On 04/06/2017 05:27 PM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 01:09:47 +0200, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
On 04/05/2017 10:54 PM, Jun Wu wrote:
I don't think "writing things that hook *may* need to filesystem" is a good
approach. It introduces unnecessary overhead if the hook does not need that
information.
I do not find the overhead concerning.
The thing to keep in mind is that if they are many things to write down,
this also means many thing changed during the transaction. So the
overhead is likely minimal. In the tags cases, just updating the various
tags related cache is going to be much more expensive that writing this
to disk.
I agree Pierre-Yves in that I/O overhead wouldn't matter. On the other hand,
I think the slowness of calling back an hg command doesn't matter, too.
The cost of a round-trip to Mercurial is close to a minimum of 0.1s. And
every hooks who needs fine transaction data will have to pay it.
Possibly multiple time. One the other hand writing down a file is a one
time operation that do not add overhead to each hook.
So I'm still leaning toward the file solution.
As the journal extension collects similar information for bookmarks, can't
we integrate the tag tracking with the journal?
Journal is currently an extension, and an experimental one. I would
prefer not to be scope bloated into solving the two points aboves before
getting theses features done.
Journal is also tracking name movement, not transaction. We would have
to teach journal about transaction first (that is probably something
useful to do, but more scope bloat :-) )
Maybe a hook will receive
some pointer to select the corresponding journal entry, and run "hg journal".
(we could use hg journal --pending, to refer to the current transaction,
that is something to think about while adding transaction awareness to
journal.)
--
Pierre-Yves David
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
