On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 14:43, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: > Ivan Zhakov wrote on Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 13:57:51 +0400: >> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 13:52, Stefan Sperling <s...@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 <s...@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'? > I mean to iterate over added_nodes (instead of deleted_nodes).
-- Ivan Zhakov
