Sander Striker wrote:
>>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?
>
>
Right now, it won't.
--
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 Tue Mar 18 20:28:32 2003