> From: Branko Cibej [mailto:brane@xbc.nu]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:45 PM
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
> >* is there a future scenario where revisions do not need to be time-ordered,
> > so maybe this points to a flow in the current implementation?
> >
> >
>
> <whimsical-mode>Points to a flow...hmmm...and flows to a point,
> too...<whimsical-mode>
>
> As far as I know, there is exactly one reason why our commits must be
> time-ordered: So that get_revision_by_date can do a binary search on
> revision numbers. If we added an extra date->revision index, this
> ordering wouldn't be necessary any more and we wouldn't need
> svn:original-date.
>
> I'd rather introduce this index and lift the restriction on svn:date
> than add another date property.
Oh, +1. This also takes care of weird events like clocks being a day
backwards on a server (which still seems to happen to some people sometimes):
day T rev R
day T-1 rev R+1
Am I correct that get_revision_by_date won't find the R+1 when searching
for T-1?
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 18 20:06:04 2003