| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 09:25:49PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 22 October 2005 12:30, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 12:13:42PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Something like: |
| 5 |
> > > * Add base class(es) for new cache framework |
| 6 |
> > > * Add cache backend for XYZ database |
| 7 |
> > > * Switch portdbapi to the new framework |
| 8 |
> > > * Remove old framework |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > eclass_cache.py chunking (portage.py removal) |
| 11 |
> > cache replacement (base + implementations) |
| 12 |
> > portage.py (dbapi), emerge changes (integration of new cache). |
| 13 |
> > removal patch |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > That said... would be curious about suggestions on how to do this |
| 16 |
> > sanely. Chunking the beast up (patch jockeying) after the fact I can |
| 17 |
> > do, but in instances like this... it's not easy to chunk it down into |
| 18 |
> > features/tweaks. Basically is big ass blobs of "new stuff", |
| 19 |
> > "conversion to new stuff", "remove old stuff". |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > Even with that... still is tricky. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Offhand, the existing cache patch could be reduced pretty heavily by |
| 24 |
> > breaking it down into addition, and removal of old cache. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Heh.. You're rambling a bit here. Addition, conversion, removal is pretty much |
| 27 |
> what my list is above. The only difference being that the individual backends |
| 28 |
> are separated out as well. |
| 29 |
At least I'm not arguing with myself... ;) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> The most important thing in the case of this patch-set is that it can be |
| 32 |
> easily seen how the new framework works and how existing code changes to |
| 33 |
> accomodate it. The removal of the old stuff and the reworked backends are |
| 34 |
> really auxillary. |
| 35 |
Yah. Will chunk up the patch today/tonight and repost. |
| 36 |
~harring |
Archives