Greg Stein <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:43:27PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > If I were really looking for something to complain about, I'd say that
> > this reminds me of folding together two loops into one loop with a
> > more complex body. It makes the process harder to follow overall.
> > But we're getting good behaviour out of it, and probably better
> > locality.
> Hmm. I'd be interested to hear more about this. i.e. what part is complex,
> and what part is harder to follow? I'm not feeling that, but it could be
> that I'm too close to what I'm doing, or that I haven't explained it
No, I'm with you --- I think it's pretty clear. It's just a general
principle kind of thing.
In the commit system Ben, Karl, and I had originally imagined, one
creates a transaction that is initially identical to the WC's base
revision, and then modifies it to be identical to the WC. Then, you
walk over it and merge that with subsequent commits.
In your arrangement, you apply the modifications and do the merge in
one pass. You get better locality, and less intermediate mucking
around in the database, but the logic is a bit more complex.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:26 2006