Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com> writes:
> > I think he meant:
> >
> > Jane starts a Subversion txn.
> > Bill starts a Subversion txn.
> > Jane makes a change to node N in her txn.
> > Bill makes a change against the same base revision of N, in his txn.
> > Jane aborts her txn.
> > Bill commits his txn.
>
> Yes, and what kind of problematic node numbers could this situation
> produce? Give me a specific example.
Actually, I don't think they are problematic, should have said so up
front. I was just concurring with Ben that there can be skips in the
sequence of node revision numbers off a given node.
Jane starts a Subversion txn 0.
Bill starts a Subversion txn 1.
Jane makes a change against 3.7 in txn 0, creating node rev 3.8
Bill makes a change against 3.7 in txn 1, creating node rev 3.8.1.1.
Jane aborts her txn, node rev 3.8 is removed from the database.
Bill commits his txn, node rev 3.8.1.1 is committed for all time.
I don't see any problem with 3.8.1.1 existing even though 3.8
doesn't.
-K
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:25 2006