On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 04:34:54PM -0700, Bob Miller wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
> > Changing to sort by time first solves that, at the expense of tracking N
> > groups at a time.
> >
> > Oh wait. If an interleave of two sets occurs, then you don't know when you
> > have the complete group. You need some kind of lookahead to decide.
> >
> > Eek...
>
> Yeah, it's something like:
>
>... algorithm ...
>
> There's no need to work on more than one commit group at a time.
If you consider that the logic will just be reading lines out of a log, then
it would ideally process each line as it arrived. Needing to "push back" or
re-queue lines could be a bit more difficult. Consider where somebody does a
big-ass commit into one CVS module, touching every file (adjust a license),
at the same time somebody is committing into another CVS module. Those will
be very intertwined; you could potentially end up buffering the entire
license change.
*shrug* Complexity will be there. Just a question of where to allocate it :-)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:28 2006