Sander Striker wrote:
>>From: Branko Cibej [mailto:brane@xbc.nu]
>>Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 12:13 AM
>>
>>
>
>[...]
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>
>The reason I didn't want to do this is that copies aren't copies anymore
>since the copied-to tree will have svn:merged-from properties attached
>to it, which the copied-from tree clearly won't have.
>
Oof, you're right.
> For tagging this
>information is completely irrelevant, so it will bite users that do a
>lot of tagging but no branching. This will also make the copy operation
>more expensive than O(1), which I think is a no-go.
>
And right again. Lazy propchange during lazy copy is not something I'd
want to contemplate. Brrrr.
Luckily, all that information is available in the node history.
--
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 09:06:33 2003