>> Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> writes: >>> That said, I still do not understand why a different ID would be needed >>> before the copy-on-write happens. Is it because the client doesn't have >>> the full history available? [...]
Hi Brane. Ref. <http://wiki.apache.org/subversion/MoveDev/MoveDev#Move_Semantics>. A different id (than node-id+copy-id) is needed because I prefer to describe the semantics of moves (on the server) in such a way, not because of anything to do with the client side, nor anything to do with existing or potential editor designs. Some important move-tracking query APIs are ones which will map between paths in one revision and "corresponding" paths in another revision. For these purposes I believe the abstract model we need to present is one in which copying a directory creates new lines of history ("node-lines") for all nodes in the subtree, even though their content may not have diverged yet. In other words, for the purposes of a query that asks "where" (at what path) in revision REV2 we would find the node corresponding to that at PATH1@REV1, it should behave the same *as if* copies were always full copies and never lazy. (Conversely, in merging, for the purpose of finding a common ancestor of changes to be merged, it may be easier to work with the late branching / lazy-copy model, as the nearest common ancestor can be nearer.) The "node-line" concept is merely a tool to aid in the definition of the semantics. I am not suggesting here that the node-line-id should be transmitted to the client or used in the editor APIs. (Those are separate discussions in which we may or may not want to use such a concept.) Do you object to my using this invented concept as a tool within the semantic specification, or do you object to this abstract concept being made concrete and stored and exposed? Do you disagree with the semantics I defined, or find it hard to interpret, or is it that you would prefer to describe the same thing in a different way? I'm not clear. The same semantics could of course be defined in other ways. However the definition as I've written it clearly doesn't work if we just write (node-id, copy-id) in place of (node-line-id). Here is an example of how it makes a difference. Start with r10: trunk /A /B branch the trunk: r20: trunk /A /B branch /A (pointer to /trunk/A) /B (pointer to /trunk/B) modify branch/A: r30: trunk /A /B branch /A /B (pointer to /trunk/B) Now let's say we're diffing branch@20 and branch@30. I want to be able to report a mapping between each path in branch@20 and the path in r30 corresponding to "the same node", where "the same node" is to be defined in some way that makes sense for tracking moves. In this simple example, there are not even any moves, and so I want the move-tracking code to be able to deduce the following 1:1 path-mapping between branch@20 and branch@20: PATH@20 PATH@30 branch <-> branch branch/A <-> branch/A branch/B <-> branch/B It certainly must not report a simple (node-id, copy-id) correspondence, because that would look something like: PATH@20 PATH@30 branch <-> branch branch/A <-> trunk/A # or (nil) as it's out of tree-scope (nil) <-> branch/A branch/B <-> branch/B which breaks the mapping between branch/A@20 and branch/A@30. Hi Philip. Branko Čibej wrote: > Philip Martin wrote: >> Another way to provide the moves between arbitrary revisions is to have >> an id to path map per revision which allows the FS to find the path >> associated with a given id. However with lazy-copy this map is harder >> to implement. Harder in the sense that a naive map from each node-line-id to each reachable path in the revision would require adding N entries to the map when copying a subtree of N nodes, thus making copy no longer O(1). To maintain O(1) copies we'd need something cleverer. In my present definition of move semantics, the ids used in this map would be what I call "node-line" ids, not the raw (node-id, copy-id) pairs. How copy-ids work is thus irrelevant to me. (Reading between the lines, I think with your questions about how copy-id assignment works you meant to question how copy-id could possibly be used to answer move tracking queries, whereas Brane answered them as direct questions about how copy-id assignment currently works.) - Julian
