On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 16:05, Bert Huijben <bert_at_vmoo.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: philip_at_apache.org [mailto:philip_at_apache.org]
>> Sent: woensdag 18 augustus 2010 12:17
>> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: svn commit: r986865 - /subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data
>> Author: philip
>> Date: Wed Aug 18 19:16:59 2010
>> New Revision: 986865
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=986865&view=rev
>> Some initial thoughts about NODE_DATA from the Sheffield meeting.
>> * notes/wc-ng/node-data: New.
>> subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data (with props)
>> Added: subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-
>> --- subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data (added)
>> +++ subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data Wed Aug 18 19:16:59 2010
>> @@ -0,0 +1,255 @@
>> +NODE_DATA Design (Sheffield 2010-08-18)
>> +Essentially it replaces BASE_NODE and WORKING_NODE by combining all
>> +the existing columns with a new op_depth column where op_depth == 0 is
>> +the old BASE_NODE and op_depth != 0 is the old WORKING_NODE.
> I don't think it *replaces* BASE_NODE and WORKING_NODE. It will contain data for both, but it doesn't replace these tables.
> Maybe it can replace WORKING_NODE, but BASE_NODE has more information than the columns you list here. Thinks like the repos_relpath and copyfrom_* are only defined on BASE and/or an operation root.
> That is why they are still modeled to stay on BASE_NODE and WORKING_NODE. And last time I looked at the design, translated_size and last_mod_time (used for optimizing away comparisions from things like 'svn status') were still on BASE and WORKING as they are only relevant for nodes that are in the wc.
Right. dav_cache is another. copyfrom_* is arguable, as moving those
into NODE_DATA would better support a copy of a mixed-rev working copy
(and in the future, mixed-repos).
But that said, there is an argument for combining all three conceptual
tables into one. Is that was you guys were suggesting?
Received on 2010-08-19 01:36:55 CEST