On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 03:46:02AM +0200, Greg Stein wrote:
> Consider the following BASE tree:
>
> A
> A/B
> A/B/foo
> A/C
>
> Next, I delete the B directory. So we create two rows in WORKING:
>
> A/B, presence=not-present
> A/B/foo, presence=not-present
>
> All good. Now, I copy A/C_at_rev to A/B. Now we have something like:
>
> A/B, copyfrom=blah
> A/B/foo, presence=not-present
>
> Now. Just given the above data, talk to me about A/B/foo.
>
> <pause>
>
> Well.... there are two possibilities:
>
> 1) A/B/foo represents the deletion of the BASE node
> 2) A/B/foo represents a deletion of A/C/foo post-copy
This was a big design problem in wc-1. Erik has mentioned it
to me a few times. Thanks for fixing it. And as far as I can
tell your approach sounds sane. And yes, please try to avoid
implicit meanings of fields, i.e. don't make fields in the DB
carry additional meaning if they occur together in some combination.
It's too confusing for people coming late to the party.
The easier to understand the DB schema is, the better.
Stefan
Received on 2009-04-02 14:19:06 CEST