Karl Fogel wrote:
>Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>
>>Well, yes and no; this UUID would be completely hidden to anyone outside
>>the repos/fs code.
>>
>>
>
>Hmmm, good point. That does lower the losingness quite a bit.
>
>
>
>>But we had this discussion before, and decided that we _need_ the uuids
>>table in the long run. Ripping it out at this point would be sheer
>>folly. What we _can_ do is decide that the copy in the FS is the master,
>>and make sure that the on-disk copy is always in sync with the master.
>>That shouldn't be hard to do.
>>
>>
>
>Historical note: we did not "decide that we _need_ it" :-). We
>decided that -- maybe, possibly -- the chances were slightly higher
>that we would need it than not, and that since we didn't really know,
>we might as well flip a mental coin and go with solution A. If you go
>back to the archives, you won't see certainty on either side. We
>really didn't have a strong reason to prefer either way.
>
Oh, *I* have strong reasons, and was quite certain at the end. :-)
>The on-disk slave copy isn't so awful, I guess, as long as it is
>clearly marked as not the master. It ain't pretty, but as long as
>there are automated protections against its getting out of date (plus
>maybe a comment right in the file, explaining that it is not the
>master), it's not so bad.
>
>
That was sort of the plan, yes. I think I'll add a link to this thread
to that issue.
--
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
Received on Mon Mar 17 23:20:00 2003