Ivan Zhakov wrote on Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 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.
>
What do you mean by '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 12:49:35 CEST