Build is green
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
All Stories
Oct 14 2021
Build is green
rebase
rebase
rebase
I'm fine with the idea.
I've suggested a couple of fix, one actually be blocking.
Do we have the same for the weekly report already?
Good idea.
published ^
Rebase
duh, sorry, I missed it
duh, sorry, I missed it
In SWHIDv2, instead of having a hardcoded "pointer to another revision" directory entry type, we could enable pointers to more generic "unresolved external entities". When possible, we should make these pointers compatible with the current ExtID table, so that users of the data can look the contents of the pointed objects up lazily.
In T3635#72206, @douardda wrote:Then I don't really get how this can help if we don't load revisions in topological order.
Answered in the description, gist of it is "to reflect the docs reality today".
What "directory_entries_insert_algo" did you use for this?
What is the motivation for this change?
Ok I think what puzzle me in this description is the fact the 2 first bullets of the "git loader adaptations" are actually only one point: at the end of a successful loading, store a mapping in the extid table.
(I've removed T3653 as parent as this is a somewhat longer term endeavour. Not the topological sorting itself, but making sure that (most) existing revisions aren't dangling, before we can use this topological guarantee)
update according to the feedbacks
In D6458#167831, @anlambert wrote:In D6458#167772, @olasd wrote:In D6458#167771, @olasd wrote:Yeah, sure, I don't have a problem with that.
(That is, I don't have a problem with these changes landing first, as long as we make sure that eventually we have a proper way of reproducing test failures that have come out of "random" fixtures.)
I might have a proper solution to reproduce test failures involving random fixtures. I am going to land that pile of diffs and submit a new one for reproducibility afterwards.
In D6458#167772, @olasd wrote:In D6458#167771, @olasd wrote:Yeah, sure, I don't have a problem with that.
(That is, I don't have a problem with these changes landing first, as long as we make sure that eventually we have a proper way of reproducing test failures that have come out of "random" fixtures.)
Actually deployed and the number of oom actually decreased.