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

Re: Issue 620

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2003-07-01 18:43:36 CEST

Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
> cmpilato and kfogel: we had a discussion about this issue last week,
> something deep and theoretical, and I don't remember the outcome. Can
> you guys reiterate our current feeling about this bug? (i.e. is it a
> real bug? why or why not?)

Holy cow. I don't remember what we concluded, but on reading it now,
I'm not sure even that the answer we proposed in the issue is a good

I kind of think the undernodes *should* have a CR of 2. Why should
the versioning filesystem's shared-storage optimization -- a mere
implementation detail -- affect what we report about a path? Those
files are new, they did not exist before revision 2, so they should
have a CR of 2 I think.

And the way you can tell they're not the same as the files they were
copied from is: if you change one, the other does not change, so they
must be different objects :-). (There's some technical term for this
kind of identity test, but I don't remember it offhand.)

The fact that our filesystem had trouble distinguishing two different
objects when they happen to share a storage key is a bug, but one
that's maybe fixed by cmpilato's created-path work recently?



To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 1 19:33:46 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.