[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: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2003-07-01 20:02:04 CEST

cmpilato@collab.net writes:

> The undernodes certainly *should* have a CR of 2. And 'svn update'
> *should* be assigning CR's of 2 to those nodes as well.
> The problem is that because our filesystem uses the cheap-copy model,
> that causes all sorts of discrepancies between the "node created rev"
> and the "path created rev". From a user's perspective, the latter is
> the interesting one. But the former is the one that doesn't cost an
> arm and a leg to calculate, and that's the only one we (currently)
> have available.
> I'm working on it, I'm working on it.

Then perhaps we should paste this discussion into issue 620, with a
crossref (dependency?) on the fs-schema-change issues that cmpilato is
working on. I don't think Shlomi or anyone else should "push" any
more on this issue until we have the new 'created path' stuff to
complement our 'created rev' idea.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 1 20:03:43 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.