Philip Martin wrote on Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:27:40 +0000: > Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> writes: > > > Philip Martin wrote on Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 13:46:39 +0000: > >> I suppose one way to fix this would be to ensure that every BDB revision > >> generates a new node-revision-id. > > > > I wouldn't call this a fix; I think it is a workaround. A "fix" would > > be to figure out why bdb reports the wrong revision number, not to make > > the place it wrongly looks the value up in contain the right value. > > I don't understand whay you want. BDB does not store the base revision > in the txn, it stores the base node-revision-id instead. Revisions > usually map 1:1 to the base node-revision-ids but the editor drive > "begin_txn, commit" breaks this because it creates a revision that > shares the base node-revision-id with the previous revision. My patch > makes the mapping 1:1 so storing the node-revision-id works. >
The tree layer assumes the DAG layer never shares root noderevs among revisions. That assumption is false. You proposed to make the DAG layer meet the assumption. I proposed to make the tree layer not make the assumption.
