Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> writes:
> Yes, that's the can of worms I was talking about. But there aren't
> that many options; we either keep an empty revision (i.e., no changes,
> just the elision record); but IIRC that causes all sorts of other
> problems; or, we put the elision record on the previous
> revision. (Previous because it always exists -- we can't obliterate
> revision 0.)
>
> However it wouldn't hurt to investigate if we can, in fact, leave
> empty revisons around after an obliterate. That would be most useful
> in general because existing revision numbers would remain valid, and
> the need to re-check-out a zillion working copies would almost vanish.
We will definitely want to support the use case where the revision
number itself has to go away. People may not use it very often, but
when they want it, they really want it. However, that's also a case
where keeping a record might not be necessary anyway!
I doubt the auditability bikeshed is going to be a design hog here.
There are various reasonable ways to do it -- if we're implementing
obliterate, then we'll pick one of those ways. Hanging things on
revision numbers seems fine to me, and so far the can of worms looks
more like a thimble of bacilli :-).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-22 08:53:09 CEST