Re: A word of warning (re: "transactions" and "revisions")

On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 12:54, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> For the purposes of the libsvn_fs API, the term "transaction" will no
> longer be sufficient for discriminating between a committed Subversion
> transaction and an uncommitted one. I am re-vamping the public FS api
> to merge the access routes for revisions and uncommitted transactions
> through the same functions (the "txn" ones). The simple fact of the
> matter is that there is no difference between a "revision" and a
> "committed transaction", so we are no longer going to pretend
> otherwise with our APIs.

In other words, we've always defined "revision" and "transaction" as
mutually exclusive terms -- a tree is either one or the other.

Now we're publically redefining the word "transaction" to be a
*superset* of the definition of "revision." That is, all trees are
transactions. Some of them just happen to be revisions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 6 20:30:00 2003