On 08/01/2011 07:10 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 06:56:13PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote: >> On 08/01/2011 04:17 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: >>>> And at the same time this update of op_depth==0 rows during revert was not >>>> necessary before this patch. >>> >>> It wasn't necessary because it was cleared by the existing revert code. >> >> We had to add to the recursive revert code AFAIR > > We added code to recursive revert when we started storing moved-to > in op_depth=0. Before then moved-to was in op_depth > 0 and cleared > out as part of existing operation of the revert code.
exactly. What were we talking about again? ;) > >> So pretty much my only concern is: do we want to avoid modifying the >> op_depth==0 nodes? > > The benefits of storing moved-to at op_depth 0 should now be quite > clear. But what's the benefit of not modifying op_depth = 0? > Note that op_depth=0 is always modified during commit and update. > It isn't read-only as such. No, of course not. But it remains untouched all the while that local mods, including merges, get tossed around in the working copy. There's one certainty: blow away op_depth>0 and you're back to upstream. I don't really know what that certainty is good for, and it seems there is no performance penalty with keeping moved-to in op_depth==0. FWIW the new certainty goes: blow away all op_depth>0 and set all moved-to to NULL... While it's only us two arguing and there's no general uproar, I'd say we're done here. (Y)our patch is good. ~Neels
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
