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

Re: Date ordering of revisions [was: fsfs bug in commit timestamps?]

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2006-01-16 20:43:56 CET

Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> When I mirror a remote repository, commits spread over several years in
>>> the remote repository can end up spread over a few minutes in the local
>>> mirror. If -r{DATE} can't do what I want, then I'd like some equally
>>> convenient syntax to refer to the original dates.
>> When you mirror a repository, there is no reason not to copy its existing
>> "svn:date" properties, so they won't be compressed into a few minutes, so
>> "-r{DATE}" can do what you want.
> At present, that's true. Under your proposed new regime, copying
> svn:date properties will not be allowed if that would cause the dates
> to become out of order, and that will happen very often when people use
> svk mirrors in the usual way. (Just mirror multiple remote repositories
> into different subtrees of a single local repository, or keep a local
> branch in the same repository as a mirrored branch, and wait long enough
> between sync operations to allow interleaved commits to happen.)
This is yet another reason to resurrect my idea that we should introduce
a secondary index for dates, and enhance the date search routines. The
requirement that svn:date ordering == revision ordering is too restrictive.

-- Brane

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jan 16 22:14:19 2006

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.