Sorry, pressed [Send] too early. Thanks for the explanations. More below.
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 22:02 +0000: > Julian Foad wrote on Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:53 +0100: > > Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > Julian Foad wrote: > > >> Checkpointing > > >> > > >> Options: > > >> > > >> 1. further patch management built on a series of shelved changes > > >> 2. local commits tightly integrated > > >> 3. checkpoints are commits in a local repository > > > > > > Can you explain these three options in more words? AIUI #1 is > > > "syntactic sugar to manage a patch series", like quilt(1), but I'm not > > > sure I understand #2 and #3. > > > > 2. What I was thinking there is to rewrite as much of our libs as needed > > to implement deeply integrated local branching in Svn client. The full > > extent of what that might entail or look like is unknown. I don't understand the distinction apparent here between 'checkpointing' and 'local branching'. Are these two terms not synonymous? > > 3. To store a series of checkpoints, create a temporary repos inside > > .svn/ and "relocate" the WC base to it. Then use it for all operations > > until the user comes to the point they want to commit to the real repo. I think when wc-ng was invented, the idea was that a 'checkpoint' would simply be another tree, alongside BASE and WORKING. I suppose this is option #4. In general, we have at least five ways of representing a tree: as a dumpstream, as an editor stream, as a FSFS revision file, as a wc.db (+ pristine store), as a diff against an empty tree. The 'temporary repository' could store the changes in any of these forms. I suppose the question is which representation is best amenable to being replayed and to resolving conflicts (when rebasing a checkpoint onto a younger start revision). Cheers, Daniel
