Re: svn:original-date

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:35:54PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:24:51PM -0600, cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> >
> >>+1, almost. Would rather do DATE->TXN_ID (that way we can get both
> >>committed and uncommitted transactions).
> >
> >As long as you have a way to go from TXN_ID to revnum(?).
>
> Oh, yes. For a committed txn, that's no problem. For an uncommitted one,
> only Buddha can find the revnum. :-)

Heh :-)

> >I don't see a need to *find* a transaction by date. I can see wanting to
> >sort the transactions, but I think it would be fine to get the list of txns
> >and then sort the results.
>
> Perhaps not today, but very probably someday. Dunno...

I'm not seeing it. txns are very transient in typical SVN usage. If you
drive the FS directly, then you can create long-lived txns. But the use
cases for finding by date? Still dunno there; that just doesn't feel like an
appropriate use case. *shrug*

> >If DATE->REVNUM is more efficient, then +1 on that, and -0 on DATE->TXN_ID.
>
> How about DATE->(TXN_ID [REVNUM])? Two stones with one bird. :-)

Well, we have at least one issue here:

  DATE->TXN_ID imples the txn is still open, thus you inserted this "early"

  DATE->(anything with revnum) implies a commit occurred

Note the difference in date values. If you put TXN_ID in there, then you're
going to do:

  1. insert DATE->(TXN_ID )
  2. time passes. txn changes. commit occurs.
  3. remove DATE->(TXN_ID )
  4. insert COMMIT_DATE->(TXN_ID REVNUM)

Personally, since I can't see a strong use case for DATE->TXN_ID, then I'd
suggest that we bail on that altogether. That means we only have step (4)
above.

At some point in the future, we can always start to insert mappings for open
transactions, and it would be very easy to detect that change in the skel.

> >So I'll make you a trade. I'll remove the prop if you add the table :-)
>
> Oooh, let me, let me! I haven't done any real work in the FS for ages,
> and it would be so nice to remember the grand old days again.

Heh. You and Mike can battle this out if we want to do it.

(I'm certainly +1 on it; just not sure what the overall consensus
 for/against this change is)

> Right after I put in the svn_filesize_t change.

You haven't responded to my comment about the signed/unsigned
svn_filesize_t. Maybe you missed it?

You defined svn_filesize_t as unsigned. Per my comments in the issue, I
think it should be signed.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org