Comment 9 for bug 715000

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Martin Pool <email address hidden> wrote:
> On 9 February 2011 08:32, John A Meinel <email address hidden> wrote:
>> I'm also pretty sure that at least James didn't realize that
>> RepoA._fallback_repositories != [RemoteRepoB, RemoteRepoC]
>
> I did not realize that either.  I think it's kind of a dangerous
> interface that way.

Its the immediate fallbacks; they can have their own - and a repo can
have N immediate fallbacks because of shared repositories with stacked
branches in the repo.

Flattening it is possible, but you want to make sure you still have
the fallback repositories know their own fallbacks so they can
maintain their own invariants about inventories, revisions etc. The
downside if you flatten it then is that you need two apis - a
non-recursive one and a recursive one, or you'll end up handling
fallbacks twice - once in the top level, and then once in the first
level. Of course this can still happen when you have several direct
fallbacks, but thats very uncommon today.

-Rob