Re: '@BASE' vs. 'BASE tree' -- was: Re: svn_wc__db_base_get_info() vs. svn_wc__db_read_info() ?
From: Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:30:37 +0000
Greg Stein wrote:
> I would also suggest new names for the trees since WORKING has caused
The big conceptual difference between your wc_db trees and what I think
(Correct me if I'm wrong - the thing is, I just don't have a very clear
So the wc_db trees are something like
* (the pristine one, known as BASE)
A cached version of the complete tree that was checked out of the
* (the tree-changes, known as WORKING)
A set of tree-changes, describing any nodes added, deleted, moved,
* (the on-disk and in-property-storage stuff, known as ACTUAL)
A description of the text-content and properties of any nodes whose
Is that anywhere close to accurate for a high-level starter?
I just went to read notes/wc-ng/design, and found:
* BASE: The tree of nodes from the repository, [...]
* WORKING: [...]
* ACTUAL: [...]
but, worryingly, that text goes into some detail that doesn't seem to
I think that block of text might have misled some of us into thinking it
> > On Jan 28, 2010 9:57 AM, "Julian Foad" <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.