On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 16:05, Bert Huijben <bert_at_vmoo.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: philip_at_apache.org [mailto:philip_at_apache.org]
>> Sent: woensdag 18 augustus 2010 12:17
>> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: svn commit: r986865 - /subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data
>>
>> Author: philip
>> Date: Wed Aug 18 19:16:59 2010
>> New Revision: 986865
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=986865&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Some initial thoughts about NODE_DATA from the Sheffield meeting.
>>
>> * notes/wc-ng/node-data: New.
>>
>> Added:
>> subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data (with props)
>>
>> Added: subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-
>> data?rev=986865&view=auto
>> ==========================================================
>> ====================
>> --- subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data (added)
>> +++ subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data Wed Aug 18 19:16:59 2010
>> @@ -0,0 +1,255 @@
>> +NODE_DATA Design (Sheffield 2010-08-18)
>> +=======================================
>> +
>> +Essentially it replaces BASE_NODE and WORKING_NODE by combining all
>> +the existing columns with a new op_depth column where op_depth == 0 is
>> +the old BASE_NODE and op_depth != 0 is the old WORKING_NODE.
>
> I don't think it *replaces* BASE_NODE and WORKING_NODE. It will contain data for both, but it doesn't replace these tables.
>
> Maybe it can replace WORKING_NODE, but BASE_NODE has more information than the columns you list here. Thinks like the repos_relpath and copyfrom_* are only defined on BASE and/or an operation root.
>
> That is why they are still modeled to stay on BASE_NODE and WORKING_NODE. And last time I looked at the design, translated_size and last_mod_time (used for optimizing away comparisions from things like 'svn status') were still on BASE and WORKING as they are only relevant for nodes that are in the wc.
>
Right. dav_cache is another. copyfrom_* is arguable, as moving those
into NODE_DATA would better support a copy of a mixed-rev working copy
(and in the future, mixed-repos).
But that said, there is an argument for combining all three conceptual
tables into one. Is that was you guys were suggesting?
Cheers,
-g
Received on 2010-08-19 01:36:55 CEST