[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: question for FSFS gurus (was: Re: FSFS successor ID design draft)

From: Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 13:57:51 +0400

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 13:52, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 01:46:09PM +0400, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 13:41, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 12:06:40AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:43:29PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> >> > I'll try to tweak my proposal such that successor ID updates become
>> >> > transactional and happen as part of every commit.
>> >>
>> >> Here's a first shot at this. Comments welcome.
>> >
>> > FSFS gurus:
>> >
>> > Are any of you looking at this?
>> > Do you think this is worth writing a prototype implementation for?
>> >
>> > I have so far only received feedback from danielsh. This makes me very
>> > happy but if anyone with a couple more years of FSFS experience under
>> > their belt could comment I would be even happier.
>> >
>> I'm not FSFS guru, but I still feel that FSFS successor ID doesn't
>> worth to be implemented because there is no strong reasons/usage for
>> it. For me it looks like bottom-up design approach.
>
> Hmmm... you don't think that auto-resolving tree-conflicts involving
> moves during merges is worth implementing?
>
No, I think that auto-resolving tree-conflicts involving moves is most
important task for Subversion 1.8. But I feel it could be implemented
without implementing FSFS successor ID storage. It seems that
algorithm that you posted could be reversed.

Anyway we can implement top-level part of handling moves and then
optimize it using FSFS successor ID storage or something else.

-- 
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2011-09-05 11:59:03 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.