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

revision numbering (was: Re: Multiple projects in one repository!)

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2002-05-03 19:32:39 CEST

On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 12:16:02PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Well, that's kind of the point. Once we have a real SQL table or
> somesuch in our filesystem back end, then the revision "names" don't
> become so important. All revisions have datestamp properties attached
> to them. As long as we are always able to sort our revisions table by
> date, we'll have a well-ordered time machine. The revision names
> become irrelevant.

Actually, when we move to a SQL backend, I suspect that on some
implementations, we might end up with holes in the revision numbers. For
example, if we use an auto sequence to generate revision numbers *and*
transaction numbers, then you'll definitely have holes as most transactions
aren't actually committed.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 3 19:31:52 2002

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.