Re: Maintaining NodeID sanity

Karl Fogel wrote:

>Thanks for the clarifying mail, Bill. It helped a lot.
>
>Below, Mike and I (we're writing this together) will respond briefly
>to a couple of the things you said, and then describe the proposal
>we've worked out. We *think* it's the same thing you've been
>proposing all along, we just want to describe it in our own words to
>make sure.
>
Just two comments from me; Bill, Mike and I hashed them out on #svn:

    * Give the root directory in revision 0 and initial copy id of 0.
      This means that:
          o You have a nice, handy value for initializing the copies table
          o Every node will get a copy id, making node numbering more
            consistent and incidentally promoting branches to
            first-class status
    * Swap the txn and copy id in the key, making it "node.copy.txn".
      This will cause related keys to be clustered closer together,
      making relatedness searches faster.

All in all, it looks like we have a sane design now. :-)
/me dances a jig for sheer glee

-- 
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