Greg Stein <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Now... back to the problem that I mentioned (due to lack of a "real N == N'
> test function"). Let's say that C == B + 1. Jon submits a change to a
> resource in B. The server says "in my TXN, that is C, which is a direct
> child [of B], so I'll let the change occur." Whoops! Of course, the resource
> in the TXN could become B+2 due to bubble up, and *then* punt. But by that
> point, damage could be done. I think we have a case where a change could be
> "legal" when it shouldn't.
Sure thing --- this would be a real bug in the commit/merge algorithm.
Suppose Jon starts a transaction T based on revision B. When Jon
asks, "Can I change path P in T, from node revision NR to whatever
node revision you choose?", shouldn't the server check that B/P is NR,
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:28 2006