Originally posted at http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/monotone-devel/2006-09/msg00124.html. There's also a little bit of discussion at http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/monotone?date=2006-09-08,Fri&sel=234#l464.
There's been some minor thought given to having a refinement scheme for revisions (for netsync) that makes use of the DAG structure to do better than the merkle refinement we do now.
Merkle refinement is O(d*log n), d being the size of the difference between the sets. It also has a problem where the subset of the revision graph being synced needs to be agreed on beforehand.
What I'm suggesting below I think will be be O(log n) generally, and significantly better for the common case where any one dev only touches a few of the graph heads. Additionally, mismatched sync sets won't cause huge retransmissions like they do now.
(Currently, pushing a nvm.newbranch can re-send all of nvm up to the branch point, if a bad sync pattern (such as just the new branch) is used. This should fix that.)
The change in O() won't matter that much, since revision traffic is also linear in d and is much bigger. What will probably matter more is the better handling of bad sync patterns.
Certs and keys will still need to use merkle refinement. However, this should be delayed until after rev refinement is complete, so we know exactly which revs we need to include certs/keys from. (specifically we only have to ask about certs on shared revs, and we want to ask about certs on all shared revs, even if they don't match the sync pattern)
matching a pair of DAGs, specifically a pair of monotone revision graphs
A "comparison" is: "I have rev XXX, do you also have it?"
After every comparison:
* each side marks as shared all revs that it has that are ancestors (inclusive) of a known-shared rev * each side marks for send all revs that it has that are descendants (inclusive) of a known-unshared rev
1) compare heads Generally, an individual dev won't be active on all branches. So, the client will still have many heads that were fetched from the server. (maybe note that these are heads, so any descendants the other side has can be immediately marked for send) 2) compare roots (maybe) If it is assumed that each history has several heads, then any common roots would have likely been eliminated in (1). So check any remaining roots before going random, as these are likely to not be shared. 3) compare random revisions until all is known Or maybe try to split the revision graph into N+1 equal chunks, where N is the number of revs checked at once (checking several at once due to round-trip latency).
Should be about O(log n), but significantly better in the common case.
Only ask about revs that are in your sync set, but reply for revs you have regardless of whether they're in the sync set. This would avoid the problem where, say, pushing a new feature branch with a glob that doesn't include the base branch will re-send large portions of the base branch.