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

Re: Moves in FSFS

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:14:19 +0100 (BST)

Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 11.09.2013 17:21, Julian Foad wrote:
>> One issue that may be harder than it sounds at first is the concept of
>> 'node-line-id' rather than (node-id, copy-id) as the basis of the
>> definition.  The point is that when we copy (ordinary copy, not move)
>> a directory, we lazy-copy the children,
> No we do not. I pointed out this fallacy before. We lazy-copy a child of
> a copied directory *when* and *if* that child is itself modified through
> the copied parent.

Here you simply misunderstood me.  As you know, a lazy copy consists of
two parts: first we just refer to the old id, and (later, or never) we
copy the content and assign a new id.  When I said "we lazy-copy the
children" I meant the former; you're using the same verb phrase to mean
the latter.  I'm sorry you found that confusing.  Perhaps we can both
try to be more explicit in future.

FWIW it seems to me that the first part is the lazy part of the whole
operation; the second part is where we pay for the earlier laziness.  I
searched in Subversion's source tree, in the book, and in the World-Wide
Web, and couldn't find any precedent for "lazy copy" referring to just
one half of the procedure.

- Julian
Received on 2013-09-12 12:15:42 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.