Re: transaction roots

Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
 
> Now, let's get back to the original question. Is there a *problem* with
> using the latest revision for the transaction root, rather than an arbitrary
> revision (i.e. the one passed to replace_root).

Sorry, Greg, I don't mean to sound so hyper or snotty in that last
message. :)

Basically, if commits are ever broken, I don't want to end up back in
the CVS mindeset: "oh, gotta test this bug (or fix) in the local case
and the network case *separately*."

If there's one *theory* that describes how to do a commit, life gets
much easier. We fall less often into that maintainability trap.

So my objection is that we currently have two different commit
systems; and I'm arguing that if we have to choose one system,
ra_local's is better... just because it's using fs_copy() and
fs_merge(). I think I'd rather depend on the (future) robustness of
these funcs rather than doing manual node-rev-id comparisons.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:26 2006