Tom Lord writes:
> Realistically (imo), _this_ performance problem can only ever really
> be important for utterly huge transaction rates.
Even then I doubt revnum's will be the performance bottleneck. As such,
this is a non-issue.
> It also becomes possible to have "smart merging" technology not be
> specific to any particular rev ctl system -- but to instead have
> systems be interoperable in this regard. I can have a branch in my
> svn repository of a line in your arch repository and smart merge
> between those.
I'm glad there are multiple revision control systems in existence
(variety is the spice of life) but I only ever use one at a time. I can
safely say that I've NEVER even thought about needing a "smart merging"
facility to smart merge between different revision control system
repositories. I doubt I ever will.
> So, I think that both the intra-repository and global revision names
> for merging purposes should not be based on revnum, but on an
> independent, higher-level namespace.
I like the revnum's. Were I forced to pick names for every revision I'd
quickly setup a script to increment an integer and stick it in there for
me. The idea that I'd be required to come up with a unique name for
every revision is sickening. Please never do that.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 16 22:46:23 2002