C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>In the current scheme, you can't simply relink a moved (directory)
>>node-rev into another directory, because the copy-id generation
>>algorithm will use the ID from another branch to generate copy-ids for
>>future versions of subsidiary files, thus possibly generating
>>duplicate node-rev-ids. Ooof.
>>
>>
>
>Is *that* the "monstrous blunder"?!
>
>
Yes, it is. But don't worry, I was all for it at the time, remember? I
even went so far as to review and approve Bill Tutt's design. Well, we
all make mistakes.
>Oh.
>
>I can see the mountainous pile of features blocked by this design
>decision. All the functionality put on hold while we sort out the
>grievous error we've made. Time lost. Potential users, turned away
>at the door for lack of Goodness.
>
>(You can stop me at any time.)
>
The point here is that the current branch ID generation scheme is a)
compliated, and b) has subtle, non-obvious side effects, but doesn't
have /any/ benefits (that I can see) over the simpler numbering within
node ID.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jun 28 07:53:22 2004