Re: [PROPOSAL] Merging Improved

Sander Striker wrote:

>>From: Branko Cibej [mailto:brane@xbc.nu]
>>Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 12:25 AM
>>
>>
>>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).
>>
>>
>
>Going from PATH to NODE-ID is indeed a minimal change to presented
>format in the proposal. +1. But, will that also work for out of repository
>merges though?
>
>

You've already got a disambiguation mechanism for that:

    [REPOS-UUID::]NODE-ID@REVISION[:REVISION]

Oh, yes: one other thing to worry about here are dump/load cycles. If
you use node id's instead of paths, then the dumper has to convert them
to paths and the loader has to convert back, because node IDs aren't
preserved across a reload.

What happens to thre repos UUIDs of out-of-repos merge sources when
those souces get reloaded is something I don't want to contemplate.

-- 
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