Greg Stein wrote:
> 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
Ahh Yes, and Oracle caches sequences. So you tend to lose some anyway.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> --
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 3 19:59:56 2002