Re: Keeping NodeRevisionIDs from being unbounded

Karl Fogel wrote:

>In the new system (whether we use the TransactionID or RevisionID),
>we'll have to record ancestry explicitly. Frankly, I think this might
>be an advantage -- it opens the door to storing multiple ancestry
>(i.e., merge information) in a natural way.
>
Interesting. I made a similar proposal, for the same reasons, a looong
time ago, and was crucified for the heretical idea that calculating node
relatedness would require a DB lookup. How nice that the middle ages are
finally ending. :-D

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org