On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 07:31:37PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > 2) we only update version resource URLs for the things that change. since we
> > must update version resource URLs and revision numbers in tandem, this
> > means that we do not update revision numbers for the things that don't
> > change. the side effect is that we now get a scattering of revision
> > numbers in the WC, generating a large client-state report during an
> > "update" process.
> But the client-state report is not driven by the version URL; it's
> driven by the version numbers in the wc's entries files.
Agreed. And when fragmentation occurs, this report is larger.
> (And we
> *were* planning to update all of those, since libsvn_wc can do that
> without a large report from the server, and since we have to make a
> pass over the working directory anyway. Although I have some concerns
> about file churn and backup volume, personally.)
If the revision number is to be updated for an entry, then we must also
update the version resource URL. If not... We In Big Heap-um Trouble.
Therefore, we must respond with all of the new version resource URLs when an
> > My initial query was whether this would work within the FS. Nobody
> > is considering that, but whether it is "right" or not.
> Well, Jim may be the only person qualified to answer that question at
> the moment, and I think he's away right now.
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:18 2006