Re: design document

yellow.flying wrote:
> **>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.
>
> I see that the committing files are still grouped by working copy in native
> implement of commit now, but it can be extend to group by repository. So
> if "committables" you design can deal with the later situation, I can
> reuse it.
>
> you say "no need to group committables by working copy, only by repository",
> do you mean that "base_dir_access" in the following function is not
> necessary
> a working copy access baton but a access baton to the base directory of
> several working copies from the same repository?

I had forgotten about the access baton situation. (Actually, I think my
code was written before we had access batons ... it was the addition of the
access baton paradigm that made this all stop working, if I recall correctly.)

Could this be as simple as adding a pointer to a working copy access baton
to the committable structure, plus a master array of top-level working copy
access batons (for post-commit releasing)?

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2356774