> From: Branko Cibej [mailto:brane@xbc.nu]
>
>
> Very necessary, imho. We have files and directores today, and can
> predict (internal) references and (external) symlinks.
>
> Predecessor and copy history should be merged, and generalized. Any
node
> can have any number of ancestors and descendants. The fact that we're
> storing copy history separately right now is an artifact of the
current
> node id scheme, which encodes single-predecessor revision history.
> (Which is nuts, but we're all aware of that now. :-) Node history is a
> DAG, too, and should be represented as such.
>
Actually, copy history is very important to be kept separately because
that's the only concept SVN has of "branch" tracking atm.
If we don't maintain copy history in a distinctly different fashion, we
won't be able to integrate that information in when we finally support
some kind of "Branch management schema"
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 24 02:33:00 2002