[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: svn revision r0 question

From: Paul Charlton <techguru_at_byiq.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:04:42 -0700

I respectfully disagree that the phrase {2007-01-02} has no meaning. It
defines a set of all revisions matching that date ... there is no
requirement that the initial set be ordered to determine membership in the
named subset .... that's why all relationship DBMS have the ability to
create an index on the fly of most any field of a collection of records.

Ordering the original set persistently to determine sub-set membership is
only an optimization.

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Hudson [mailto:ghudson_at_MIT.EDU]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:03 AM
To: Paul Charlton
Cc: 'Subversion Developers'
Subject: RE: svn revision r0 question

On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 09:36 -0700, Paul Charlton wrote:
> I guess we should question the assumption that both revision and the
> svn:date property associated with the revision should be monotonically
> increasing. To me, they are separate concepts, can use separate
persistent
> storage, and can use separate indices for sort/search and retrieval.

You're still focused on the implementation. The implementation is not
the problem.

{2007-01-02} has *no meaning* if revisions are not linearly
date-ordered.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-09-29 22:04:51 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.