On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 17.09.2013 01:19, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > After two hours of analysis, it seems that I have found > > the correct definition for the "node line ID" as required > > by Julian's move API design > > I thought we already determined that the concept was not necessary. What > did I miss? > Hm. I wondered what I missed, scanned the posts from the last few days and could not find a statement that IDs were not necessary to be able to track renames / moves. IMO, we need an operation / query that maps paths in tree1@r1 onto paths in tree2@r2 (details like tree vs. dir etc. may vary). I see two ways to implement that operation: (1) history scan (2) having / defining IDs and matching those >From an operational complexity POV, both may actually be equivalent but that would depend on implementation details. My gut feeling is that (2) is more efficient in the majority of cases and my initial post showed that no FS-layer ID is fully sufficient (but may be useful for internal optimizations and quick checks) for it as long as there is lazy copying. -- Stefan^2.
