[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: Re: fs dump/restore proposal

From: Bill Tutt <rassilon_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2002-04-24 02:31:57 CEST

> 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
> can have any number of ancestors and descendants. The fact that we're
> storing copy history separately right now is an artifact of the
> 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"


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

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.