[ Just for good form: I know I don't belong in the forum, and haven't
registered
or introduced myself. Consider me as an 'interested bystander'; if I
had the
time, I'd have contibuted by now, but I don't, so I don't.
]
> So there's really no distinction between descendents of a
> node-revision, even though one of them looks primary and the rest look
> secondary. Okay. (I can't come up with any reasonable numbering
> system which avoids this artificial distinction, so I guess we just
> live with that foible.)
Just to add another data point, we should also consider what happens
when
(post-1.0) Subversion supports cross-repository links. This means we
may have
two seemingly independent nodes, where just the ancestry reveals they
originated from the same node in another repo...
IMO, the best approach would be to just use plain nodes + version# (w/o
branch
marks in the versions) and to use e.g. topological sort on the ancestry
set to
detect 'related' nodes. But then, since somebody else is doing it and
not I,
I'll stop giving unsolicited advice
right now.
Alon Ziv <mailto:alonz@zapper.com>
System Architect (Client Team)
Zapper Technologies Inc. <http://www.zapper.com/>
Tel.: +972 (3) 6949226
- application/x-pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:16 2006