On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:23:17AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > Did I understand you correctly?
> I wasn't anticipating the change you seem to be proposing, where the
> committables are grouped by working copy.
> My redesign of the commit process long ago assumes no need to group
> committables by working copy, only by repository. Commits are driven based
> on the committable's URL today -- *not* based on its working copy path.
> That's what allows us to theoretically get atomicity in a commit that spans
> multiple working copies which point to the same repository.
Right. I was referring to the notion that we'll need multiple access
batons, one for each working copy, on the libsvn_wc side (see Hui Huangs
design proposal which this thread is based on). Of course, the commit
itself will still be keyed by repository.
> Again, the code may be so stale and so tweaked by now that the design I had
> in mind is now useless. And I'm certainly not tied to those old ideas. I
> just don't want to see unnecessary effort invested if we can avoid it.
OK, but we are really drifting into issue #1167 here.
We may want to amend that issue with a pointer to this thread.
Received on 2009-05-28 19:27:36 CEST