[PATCH 10 of 14] obsstore: pass a repository object for initialisation

[Boris Feld]

On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 14:16 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 2017, at 14:15, Boris Feld <boris.feld at octobus.net>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 14:11 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 07:55:22PM +0200, Boris Feld wrote:
> > > > # HG changeset patch
> > > > # User Boris Feld <boris.feld at octobus.net>
> > > > # Date 1495197862 -7200
> > > > #      Fri May 19 14:44:22 2017 +0200
> > > > # Node ID 985d753d4f5799f2a332140adedb06efd465d62b
> > > > # Parent  63214f4d9a766761259b650539eede424413e6a2
> > > > # EXP-Topic obs-cache
> > > > obsstore: pass a repository object for initialisation
> > > > 
> > > > The cache will needs a repository object (to grab a 'vfs'), so
> > > > we
> > > > pass a repo object instead of just the 'svfs' and we grab the
> > > > 'svfs'
> > > > from there.
> > > 
> > > I suspect I'll get to it, but why does this cache want to know
> > > about
> > > anything outside of svfs?
> > > 
> > > I'm pretty uncomfortable (architecturally) with passing all of
> > > `self`
> > > into the cache layer.
> > 
> > The obscache need the vfs and not the svfs because caches lives in
> > .hg
> > and not in .hg/store.
> > 
> > Passing the whole repo and grabbing what we need seemed simpler.
> 
> It's simpler today, but more of a potential headache later if someone
> decides to just retain the whole repo in the cache. I'd rather not do
> it.

I understand the danger.

Should we pass vfs and svfs explicitly in the V2 then?