On 9 Sep 2013 16:22, "Julian Foad" <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> The design of Ev2 is based on the concept of incremental edits to a
"current" tree state. I feel that the idea that you could start editing
the tree, deleting subtrees, and then come to an operation that says "Now
please recover one of the subtrees that I earlier told you to delete"
doesn't fit with that philosophy.
> The model of operation of the "split-move" scheme is no more split than
the model implied by the "single-move" scheme; it's just more explicit. It
doesn't in any way change or add to the overall semantic content of
> the edit, all it changes is the timing of the information, fore-warning
the consumer that a forthcoming deletion is not to be regarded as final and
> absolute. That fore-warning makes a sequential consumer implementation
I think you're assuming that an implementation that doesn't keep track of
the initial state is simpler, or rather, "easier" to write. I don't agree
with that assumption. The repository already has all history available, and
the WC can "trivially" be taught to remember the initial state.
I also don't agree that Ev2 design makes any assumptions about initial
state. It's more likely that we're making too many assumptions about WC
Received on 2013-09-09 17:05:54 CEST