Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:44:37 -0800 exchange: extract computation of pulled markers boundary in a function
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:44:37 -0800] rev 825
exchange: extract computation of pulled markers boundary in a function I expect massive experimentation on this specific aspect. so we better isolate it.
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:38:19 -0800 exchange: pull markers relevant to the pulled subset only
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:38:19 -0800] rev 824
exchange: pull markers relevant to the pulled subset only With the command recently introduced we can select to pull only markers relevant to some nodes. We are now pull all markers for all node in the relevant subset. We'll try to pull less (just markers for node where local and remote marker diverge) later, but we need some marker discovery mechanism for that. which are not easy.
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:25:34 -0800 exchange: add a new method to pull markers
Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david@fb.com> [Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:25:34 -0800] rev 823
exchange: add a new method to pull markers It has both local and wire protocol implementation. This command does not requires escaping of the marker and are expecting to me highly faster than the pushkey method. The other main point is that command is to accept a `heads` and `common` argument to select to pull changeset only relevant to a set a of node. We are not using this capability yet but we'll do it soon
(0) -300 -100 -30 -10 -3 +3 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 tip