Branko Čibej wrote: > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> Branko Čibej wrote: >>> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >>>> 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
Hi Stefan. Thanks. I agree your definition satisfies the requirements for such an id as defined in <http://wiki.apache.org/subversion/MoveDev/MoveDev#Move_Semantics>, as far as I can tell after a quick think. >>> 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. > > There was no such statement. But there's no need to invent a new ID. > [...] I explained in that post why the other apparent problem with lazy > copying is not in fact a problem. I'd rather see someone respond to that > and prove me wrong before we go inventing a new concept that we don't need. Hi Brane. I've replied in that other thread "Moves in FSFS". We all seem to be talking at cross purposes there, all thinking we have a shared understanding when in fact we all have different assumptions. Let's try to be clearer and never write "it will do this" without giving a pointer to the definition of "it". - Julian
