pulkit added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4638#70613, @indygreg wrote: > I think the code as written makes sense: I'd rather have 1 loop over `deltas` than 2. > > Regarding the other potential improvement, the reality of changegroups is that both they and bundle2 are container formats. In the context of bundle2, I think it makes more sense to send "delta groups" as individual bundle2 parts and to do away with changegroups completely. My guess is we haven't done this because the changegroup code has always existed, is non-trivial, and "just works." In other words, there hasn't been a pressing need to split up the changegroup code, so nobody has done it. Yep, just because changegroup exists, and it was not very much hard to prevent sending the changegroup data, I prevented myself working on the "delta groups" idea. However, in future, if we want to come up with a new format due to some reasons, individual "delta groups" sounds a promising idea. REPOSITORY rHG Mercurial REVISION DETAIL https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D4638 To: pulkit, #hg-reviewers, indygreg Cc: indygreg, mercurial-devel _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
