Conversation
peterjc
force-pushed
the
dual_db
branch
2 times, most recently
from
547e3f3 to
86b72d0
Compare
This assumes the default DB will soon have multiple markers
Owner
Author
|
(Just rebased, no changes) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Would probably make the dual marker DB part of a v1.1.0 version bump, but there are a number of incremental changes we can make first.
If and when we do go dual marker, there are various changes including the default DB filename itself (and thus the treatment of the default argument for the DB).
See also #631 which was motivated by this use case.