Thomas Moschny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stephen Leake wrote: >> There are two formats for "changes to rosters" stored in the database; >> changesets and roster_deltas. >> >> I'm not clear why we have both. > > Well, it's different. Changesets describe the 'original' first class > data. For example, only changesets are transferred in a sync > operation between two databases (and associated file contents, of > course), not rosters. Rosters form strictly local caches that can at > any time be regenerated from the changesets. So, keeping changesets > is a form of redundancy (or security, if you wish) in case something > breaks.
Right. > As a side note, rosters are stored as roster deltas, and of course, there are > similarities between changesets and roster deltas, so, the idea of changing > our storage format to keep only one of them has already been floating around > for a while. This is not a simple change however, and afaik no one has > implemented something in that direction yet. Right. And having looked into it more, there are significant differences; roster_deltas can use node ids instead of file names, for example. So I'll just add some comments about "if you change this, change that also". I'm also starting a document that says stuff like the above, to aid the next poor soul that goes down this road. -- -- Stephe _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
