[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Copy node vs copy property (was Re: CVS update ...)

From: Jim Blandy <jimb_at_zwingli.cygnus.com>
Date: 2001-03-14 18:29:11 CET

Yoshiki Hayashi <yoshiki@xemacs.org> writes:
> Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com> writes:
> > Yoshiki Hayashi <yoshiki@xemacs.org> writes:
> > > Since these are done by one trail (one DB transaction), the
> > > order of above three operation doesn't matter. So you can
> > > first create a new fs revision and then walk through mutable
> > > nodes. When the function finds a mutable node, it checks
> > > whether it is a copy node or not and if it is, it replaces
> > > base fs revision field of copy property.
> >
> > Yes, that would certainly work. It's kind of ugly, though, for the
> > filesystem to be wonking on node properties. It would be really nice
> > if we could come up with an entirely client-side approach.
> I'm a bit confused. What do you mean by entirey client-side
> approach? Somehow the information where copy node has been
> copied from must be stored in filesystem?

What I meant is that the client can accomplish the task using only the
existing svn_fs.h interface. The filesystem can remain simple and
ignorant of copy tracking, while the client takes care of annotating
things appropriately.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:25 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.