Re: Move using initial state (was: Update of "MoveDev/Ev2MovesDesign" ...)

2013-09-07 Thread Greg Stein
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 07.09.2013 12:47, Greg Stein wrote: >... >> I'm curious why a move() would be sent to a client. > > Off the top of my head: > > * It would help find better solutions to a category of tree conflicts > that we currently do not handle ver

Re: Move using initial state (was: Update of "MoveDev/Ev2MovesDesign" ...)

2013-09-07 Thread Branko Čibej
On 07.09.2013 12:47, Greg Stein wrote: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: >> ... >> For the server->client-mixed-revision >> scenario, I now believe this is not the case. > I'm curious why a move() would be sent to a client. Off the top of my head: * It would help find bette

Re: Move using initial state

2013-09-07 Thread Branko Čibej
On 06.09.2013 18:56, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > I don't fully grok the Ev2 ideas and discussions, so not sure this is > relevant, but please do remember this little detail: for working > copies on case-insensitive filesystems, it's important that deletes > are executed before adds (for handling case-

Re: Move using initial state

2013-09-07 Thread Branko Čibej
On 07.09.2013 11:25, Philip Martin wrote: > Greg Stein writes: > >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Philip Martin >>> Two people at least. I have shown how Ev2 with a split move could >>> handle the case >>> >>>A/B/C to A >>>A/B to A/B >>>A to A/B/C >>> >>> What is your alternative? >

Re: Move using initial state (was: Update of "MoveDev/Ev2MovesDesign" ...)

2013-09-07 Thread Greg Stein
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: >... > For the server->client-mixed-revision > scenario, I now believe this is not the case. I'm curious why a move() would be sent to a client. Cheers, -g

Re: Move using initial state

2013-09-07 Thread Greg Stein
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Philip Martin wrote: >... > Note that we have to save the original nodes in the temporary table even > though we don't yet know that they will be needed. In this case a later > move is going to refer to original A but we don't know that is going to > happen. For t

Re: Move using initial state

2013-09-07 Thread Greg Stein
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Philip Martin wrote: > Greg Stein writes: > >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Philip Martin >>> Two people at least. I have shown how Ev2 with a split move could >>> handle the case >>> >>>A/B/C to A >>>A/B to A/B >>>A to A/B/C >>> >>> What is your al

Re: Move using initial state

2013-09-07 Thread Philip Martin
Philip Martin writes: > Greg Stein writes: > >> move(A/B/C@original, A, replace=R) > > What does the receiver do? I suppose it could implement the replace and > move the replaced nodes to some temporary table: > > NODES local_relpath revision status repos_path > A 6

Re: Move using initial state

2013-09-07 Thread Philip Martin
Greg Stein writes: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Philip Martin >> Two people at least. I have shown how Ev2 with a split move could >> handle the case >> >>A/B/C to A >>A/B to A/B >>A to A/B/C >> >> What is your alternative? How does you suggestion work? Start with NODES loca