Seems like this will make things even more complicated. I'd be in
favor of *not* switching to NODES unless/until the op_depth is done
properly. If you switch early, then you're going to require another
format bump to reset all the op_depth fields to their proper values. I
don't think an early-switch to NODES before proper op_depth
computation will buy us anything.
Cheers,
-g
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:00, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Philip and I have started implementing op_depth in the NODES table, but
> we soon found there is more to do than simply calculating a value here
> and there.
>
> ("Implementing op_depth" means enabling multiply nested
> copies/replacements/adds/deletes etc., with the ability to revert at
> each level.)
>
> In the meantime, some tests were breaking, so we have made the full
> op_depth support conditional on SVN_WC__OP_DEPTH.
>
> Why? The interim 0/1/2 op_depth values have been working OK in the
> limited context of the amount of nesting that BASE+WORKING supports. We
> might want to make a transition from BASE_NODE/WORKING_NODE to NODES
> first, before enabling the full op_depth support. That is probably the
> main reason why this further conditional is useful. The alternative
> would be to complete op_depth support before switching the default build
> over to NODES.
>
> Any concerns about working within SVN_WC__OP_DEPTH?
>
> - Julian
>
>
>
Received on 2010-09-28 11:49:36 CEST