Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

(WIP) Move parts of ipfs add into lib core/coreunix #1756

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

rht
Copy link
Contributor

@rht rht commented Sep 26, 2015

No description provided.

rht added 2 commits September 26, 2015 11:04

Unverified

This commit is not signed, but one or more authors requires that any commit attributed to them is signed.
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: rht <rhtbot@gmail.com>

Unverified

This commit is not signed, but one or more authors requires that any commit attributed to them is signed.
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: rht <rhtbot@gmail.com>
@jbenet jbenet added the status/in-progress In progress label Sep 26, 2015
@@ -90,49 +150,176 @@ func AddWrapped(n *core.IpfsNode, r io.Reader, filename string) (string, *merkle
return gopath.Join(k.String(), filename), dagnode, nil
}

func add(n *core.IpfsNode, reader io.Reader) (*merkledag.Node, error) {
mp := n.Pinning.GetManual()
func NewAdder(ctx context.Context, n *core.IpfsNode, out chan interface{}, progress bool, hidden bool, trickle bool, wrap bool, chunker string) Adder {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe instead of such a big function, can have an init like:

a := NewAdder(ctx, n, out)
a.Progress = true // defaults to false
a.Hidden = false // defaults to true
a.Trickle = true // defaults to false
a.Chunker = "rabin" // defaults to ""

@jbenet
Copy link
Member

jbenet commented Sep 26, 2015

@rht this PR is great! much needed cleanup.

@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

😢 rebasing dev0.4.0 on this is gonna murder me.

@jbenet
Copy link
Member

jbenet commented Sep 26, 2015

@whyrusleeping do you want this on top of dev0.4.0 instead? @rht would that be ok? /want to minimize work for whyrusleeping atm as he's handling a bunch of other important things

@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

Yeah, I would prefer that anything that touches add, the block store, or pinning go on top of 040.

@rht
Copy link
Contributor Author

rht commented Sep 27, 2015

Will redo on top of 0.4.0.

What is the remaining bottleneck to shipping 0.4.0? Dealing with merge conflicts?

@rht
Copy link
Contributor Author

rht commented Sep 27, 2015

(merging is fine until this commit: 72c0282)

@jbenet
Copy link
Member

jbenet commented Sep 27, 2015

@rht it needs to be rebased. but the real blockers are

  • getting UDT in 0.3.8
  • getting ipfs update in 0.3.8
  • getting IPNS fixes in in 0.3.8
  • (maybe) merge IPLD into dev0.4.0

Sorry, something went wrong.

@rht rht closed this Oct 3, 2015
@jbenet jbenet removed the status/in-progress In progress label Oct 3, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants