On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 12:17:21PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> 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.
Huh? You sure?? ... I thought you would end up with 3.8 and 3.7.1.1. Bill's
change is *not* derived from 3.8.
Therefore, you'd end up with 3.7 and 3.7.1.1. I would presume that further
changes occur on the 3.7.1 line.
There are still no holes, but I don't think the above numbering is correct.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:25 2006