On Thu, 2010-01-28, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:30, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> > The big conceptual difference between your wc_db trees and what I think
> > the user's concept of trees should be, is that the wc_db trees are
> > "overlays", whereas the user's notions of "base" and "working" are
> > complete trees, in the sense that for an unmodified file both notions
> > regard the file as existing and having content.
Hi, all. I've written up this brief definition of the WC-NG DB trees at
<http://subversion.wandisco.com/wiki/index.php/WC-NG_trees_-_defining_BASE_and_WORKING_and_ACTUAL>. Could you all have a look and add to it or just mention to me anything that is worth noting or correcting. After a few rounds I'll move it to an in-tree document.
In particular, one question for Greg:
> > 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
> > repository. (Well, ish.)
> No need to use the term "cached". That is misleading. You have a copy
> of some portion of the repository. Plain and simple.
> > * (the tree-changes, known as WORKING)
> > A set of tree-changes, describing any nodes added, deleted, moved,
> > copied, replaced, etc. Any node that just has text and/or prop mods, or
> > no mods, does not appear in this tree.
> > * (the on-disk and in-property-storage stuff, known as ACTUAL)
> > A description of the text-content and properties of any nodes whose
> > text-content and/or properties are different from its WORKING version.
> > Any node that has no such differences does not appear in this tree.
> Its WORKING node; or if none, then the BASE node.
Sorry Greg, I didn't understand your comment there. Could you clarify?
> The ACTUAL tree can also record tree conflicts for nodes that exist in
> neither WORKING nor BASE.
Received on 2010-02-09 19:21:16 CET