Re: svn:original-date

Branko Čibej wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
>>* is there a future scenario where revisions do not need to be time-ordered,
>
> 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.

I don't have enough experience with this. Could someone else verify
that that is the only reason?

Is get_revision_by_date not used to find the beginning and end of a
range of revisions (rX -> rY), with the assumption that this will be
equal to the set of changes made between dates X and Y?

> If we added an extra date->revision index, this
> ordering wouldn't be necessary any more and we wouldn't need
> svn:original-date.

So svn:date would no longer mean "date of this revision" in the context
of an SVN (as opposed to CVS) revision. I cannot see clearly whether
this change to the semantics of svn:date is safe.

For instance, assume a combination of regular SVN commits and back-dated
CVS2SVN commits resulted in this history:

   r2 10 Jan Added foo.c
   r3 8 Jan Added bar.c

Then I request:

   svn co --revision {"9 Jan"}

Which file(s) will it check out? Which should it check out? This
obviously isn't intended as a multiple-choice question, but a policy
decision.

I have no reason to uphold the requirement for svn:date to increase
monotonically, except that I feel there may BE a good reason for it already.

- Julian

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 20 00:00:22 2003