On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 03:29, Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 16:54, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>...
>>> Earlier today on IRC, Philip and I came to the conclusion that a copy of
>>> a mixed-rev subtree (at least from BASE) should be all at the *same*
>>> op_depth.
>>
>> Right. This is why the original NODES table had copyfrom_rev in it --
>> to support copies of mixed-rev subtrees.
>
> NODES still contains the copyfrom revision, it's the revision column
> when op_depth > 0.
Aware of that. At one point, it was considered to be "left behind" in
the WORKING_NODE table (since it doesn't apply to BASE nodes). But
when I started thinking about mixed-rev working copies, I moved the
copyfrom_* fields into the NODES definition. Later, when you guys
found that a single table solution was best, then it was going in no
matter what. I'm just saying that it was already there to support
mixed-rev, so I'm simply confirming your conclusion of a single
op_depth for copy operations.
Cheers,
-g
Received on 2010-10-06 19:43:05 CEST