Sander Striker wrote:
>>From: Branko Cibej [mailto:brane@xbc.nu]
>>Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 11:03 PM
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>Sander Striker wrote:
>>>I also found out that I forgot about one rule in the
>>>bookkeeping process:
>>>
>>>If the MRCA of M and L is not the same path as M, then
>>>a line needs to be added to svn:merge that contains the
>>>MRCA of M and the HEAD of the path of the MRCA of M and L
>>>(you might need to re-read that twice).
>>>
>>>Example 3. M1 is a good example of this.
>>>
>>>
>>Let me see if I understand... that's where you got the trunk@34 line in
>>M1 in example 3, right?
>>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>>Hm, (scratch scratch). Isn't that always the same as the branchpoint
>>of M's path?
>>
>>
>
>No. Consider attached example. Ofcourse you always bring forward
>interesting cases ;). In this case I clearly forgot about something.
>
>We need to find _all_ the branchpoints of M until we hit the path of the
>MCRA, and either record them all or decide to infer them at the time
>we need them. The latter could lead to some brute force searching
>at a later point in time though (for every source merged that doesn't
>have an entry in svn:merged-from yet).
>
>
Aha! Well then, I'd suggest to record the branch point at the time of
the branch. Even though that information is trivially available from the
node ancestry, you don't have to traverse the node history at merge
time. This would also let you compute the MRCA just by comparing the
svn:merged props.
Assuming no tree changes, of course, to deal with those, you'd more
likely have to record node-id@revision rather than path@revision, and
use the node change's committed-path info to get the path.
--
Brane Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 11 00:13:40 2003