Karl Fogel <kfogel@galois.ch.collab.net> writes:
> Ahh. I *think* I understand now. Jim, in that example I posted:
>
> Jane starts a Subversion txn 0.
> Bill starts a Subversion txn 1.
> Jane makes a change against 3.7 in txn 0, creating node rev 3.8
> Bill makes a change against 3.7 in txn 1, creating node rev 3.8.1.1.
> Jane aborts her txn, node rev 3.8 is removed from the database.
> Bill commits his txn, node rev 3.8.1.1 is committed for all time.
> =====> Now 3.8.1.1 exists, but 3.8 does not
>
> there isn't a "hole", and won't be a hole in the future, because no
> two-component noderev ID of the form 3.N (where N >= 8) will ever be
> created after the above scenario has happened.
>
> However, it is not a problem that, say, 3.10 can never exist.
> Revisions of that node after 3.7 will be on some 3.8.X branch, and
> that's just fine. It's not like "branch" in this context has anything
> to do with user-visible branches (i.e., copies). Relatedness distance
> between node revisions, for whatever it's worth, can still be computed
> according to the formula given in structure.
>
> Is this an accurate summary?
Yes.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:25 2006