[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PROPOSAL] Merging Improved

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2003-04-11 00:25:19 CEST

Sander Striker wrote:

>Not doing tree deltas in the proposal is simply because the same
>rules apply for them as for normal text files. The merge history
>can be recorded in the svn:merged-from property on the directories
>the same way as we do for files. Consider a directory to be a
>textfile containing filenames ;). [in practice we have real code
>to deal with tree deltas, but the idea is pretty much the same]

With one caveat: taking tree changes into account will affect the way
merge history is recorded (see my other post). If you record
PATH@REVISION[:REVISION], you do get unique keys, but when you're
comparing merge histories of M and L, you can't tell if they're related
just by looking at the PATH part.

I /think/ that recording NODE-ID@REVISION[:REVISION] would be sufficient
(assuming we have atomc renames that preserve node id's): Perhaps even
NODE-CHANGE-PK[:NODE-CHANGE-PK], which is semantically the but a) avoids
one index lookup when pulling the MRCA or MRMR from the repository, but
b) makes history comparison harder (without making assumptions about the
strucutre of the NODE-CHANGE primary key).

I whish Bull Tutt was here... :-(

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 Fri Apr 11 00:26:06 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.