Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > I can't tell see what advantage copy nodes have over simply setting
> > a property on the copy that says where it was copied from.
>
> Oh, people thought of that. The only problem is that properties are
> inherited from one revision to the next, so you'd have to special-case
> those properties or lose information.
No, you include the revision number in which the copy took place in
the property. (How you'd get the revision number before you do the
commit, I don't know, but surely that can be addressed somehow.) Copy
properties would accumulate, or perhaps we'd erase copy properties
from previous revisions, since we could always find them.
> (And would lose information. If node-rev 100.3 and node-rev 100.4
> both say they're copies of rev 12 foo/bar, that *could* be true, or
> 100.4 *could* be just inheriting from 100.3.) Unless we do
> something special.
Suppose we copied 12:foo/bar to foo/baz first in revision 13, and then
copied 13:foo/baz to foo/qux in revision 14. 13:foo/baz would have an
`svn:copy' property of `13 12:foo/bar', and 14:foo/qux would have an
`svn:copy' property of `14 13:foo/baz'. You could trace the history
back by actually looking up the referenced revision.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:23 2006