Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-20 Thread Greg Stein
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 15:36, Greg Stein wrote: >... > Erik and I talked further on IRC... > > I believe the right approach is a simple boolean "prior-deleted", > meaning "the nodes visible just under *this* layer have been deleted". > Examining the root node's moved_to column can refine how the

Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-20 Thread Greg Stein
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 14:07, Julian Foad wrote: > On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 18:45 +0100, Julian Foad wrote: >... >> FULL SET OF VALUES >> >> The values listed above cover most of the cases.  Next we must consider >> how to get a full set of values to represent all possible changes. >> >> The possibl

Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-20 Thread Julian Foad
On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 18:45 +0100, Julian Foad wrote: > On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 13:17 -0400, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:21, Julian Foad wrote: > > > Greg Stein wrote: > > >... > > >> Also, please note that I want to expand the presence values > > >> dramatically with this move

Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-20 Thread Julian Foad
On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 13:17 -0400, Greg Stein wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:21, Julian Foad wrote: > > Greg Stein wrote: > >... > >> Also, please note that I want to expand the presence values > >> dramatically with this move to NODES. I suggest the following new > >> values: > > > > Can you

Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-20 Thread Greg Stein
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:21, Julian Foad wrote: > Greg Stein wrote: >... >> Also, please note that I want to expand the presence values >> dramatically with this move to NODES. I suggest the following new >> values: > > Can you explain what these would mean, and what are the main advantages? Pr

Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-16 Thread Julian Foad
Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 13:29, Julian Foad wrote: > > Bert, Erik, Greg... > > > > I think the schema should not disallow the 'excluded' presence in NODES > > table where op_depth > 0 (which corresponds roughly to old > > WORKING_NODE). There are already 'copy' cases where it

Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-15 Thread Greg Stein
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 13:29, Julian Foad wrote: > Bert, Erik, Greg... > > I think the schema should not disallow the 'excluded' presence in NODES > table where op_depth > 0 (which corresponds roughly to old > WORKING_NODE).  There are already 'copy' cases where it is used, and > seems useful and

[PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-15 Thread Julian Foad
Bert, Erik, Greg... I think the schema should not disallow the 'excluded' presence in NODES table where op_depth > 0 (which corresponds roughly to old WORKING_NODE). There are already 'copy' cases where it is used, and seems useful and right. I also think the schema should not disallow 'absent'.