Re: [Issue 1525] Use new "entity ID" notion instead of "committed rev"

Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:

> >No, the obvious solutions are already done. We already store a
> >predecessor count field in the node revision skel.
> >
> Ah, good. I misunderstood Mike's original post, then.

Why yes, yes you did. :-)

> The idea was to get a meaningful branch number, that is, all node-revs
> on the same branch would have the same branch ID (even if they didn't
> belong to the same node!). Of course that turned out to be a monstrous
> blunder.

/me waits for the unsubstantiated claims about the blunder of the
current branch Id design.

> In the current scheme, you can't simply relink a moved (directory)
> node-rev into another directory, because the copy-id generation
> algorithm will use the ID from another branch to generate copy-ids for
> future versions of subsidiary files, thus possibly generating
> duplicate node-rev-ids. Ooof.

Is *that* the "monstrous blunder"?!

Oh.

I can see the mountainous pile of features blocked by this design
decision. All the functionality put on hold while we sort out the
grievous error we've made. Time lost. Potential users, turned away
at the door for lack of Goodness.

(You can stop me at any time.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jun 28 02:17:08 2004