> From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net]
>
> "Bill Tutt" <rassilon@lyra.org> writes:
> > Although if mbk decides to grace us with a new BDB table and new ra
> > vtable methods to achieve our goal of a GUID, far be it from us to
> > dissuade him down this wonderful route. :) A new table certainly
saves
> > us even more mess in the property handling code.
>
> If we're having a new ra method anyway, then why do we also need a new
> table? Why not just a file in the repos top level after all?
>
> Bill, I get the feeling I'm unconsious of some basic assumption of
> yours here... :-)
Distributed repositories of course! I'm an anal RDBMS data modeler kind
of guy. I like to have things in tables so that FKs can be used when the
underlying RDBMS supports it.
I also eventually want the RepositoryID to become part of the
NodeRevision table's primary key to handle BitKeeper like push/pull/sync
behavior. (Either that, or supporting RepositoryIDs in NodeRevision
primary key values that are used in ancestor set recording.)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Dec 12 08:04:29 2002