[ sorry for the delay; didn't want to reply past-midnight ]
Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 17:18:11 +0200:
> On 07.09.2011 06:05, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > What specific questions are we likely to ask about a particular node
> > revision? The obvious ones are:
> > * when was this "thing" created? (-> path_at_rev)
> > * when was it deleted? (-> path_at_rev)
> > * what is its immediate predecessor? (-> path_at_rev)
> > * what are its immediate successors? (-> list of path_at_rev, includes
> > copied-to)
> > * what is the its PATH at REV1? (-> path)
> > * where did its content come from? (-> list of path_at_rev, includes
> > merged-from)
> > * where did its content go to? (-> list of path_at_rev, includes merged-to)
> Here are some more:
> * are PATH1_at_REV1 and PATH2_at_REV2 the same thing?
> * is PATH2_at_REV2 a successor of PATH1_at_REV1?
> * ditto for predecessors
Thanks for the feedbacks. It seems the questions here are, largely,
"What is the next interesting thing that happens to PATH_at_REV" (eg,
a copy, a delete, a text mod, or a merge), in either direction.
I think the next question in this area will be what parts of this should
be in the repos layer and which should be in the FS backends. Personally
I plan to revisit these questions after the implementation of succcessors
cache reading in FSFS is done.
> Note that the first and second questions are not necessarily equivalent.
> "The same thing" implies there are no copies in the succession from
> PATH1_at_REV1 to PATH2_at_REV2, whereas the answer to the second question
> would include copies.
> Incidentally, this is where "branch" and "copy" are fundamentally
> different: a branch maintains the node identity, a copy creates a new node.
> -- Brane
Received on 2011-09-09 14:55:40 CEST