On 17.03.2015 15:06, Julian Foad wrote:
> I (Julian Foad) wrote:
>> * uniformity of the difference from branch1@r1 to branch2@r2
>> for any values of: branch1, r1, branch2, r2
>> where branch1 and branch2 are 'related' (formally: in the same branch
>> family)
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>> The
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> * uniformity of the difference from branch1@r1 to branch2@r2
> for any values of: branch1, r1, branch2, r2
> where branch1 and branch2 are 'related' (formally: in the same branch
> family)
Branko Čibej wrote:
> The pure-difference is called 'svn_repos_replay'. [
On 10.03.2015 18:00, Julian Foad wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 06.03.2015 12:13, Julian Foad wrote:
> [...]
>>> In order to build a sane merging system, we expect certain symmetries in
>>> the data model.
> [...]
>>> That generalizes to:
>>>
>>>* uniformity of the difference from branch1
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
[...]
> The underlying problem, I suggest, is that we haven't clearly defined
> how copying fits into the model of 'versioned state' and 'difference'.
[...]
I should add, for anyone unsure of my motivation, I'm criticizing only in order
to help us understand how we can imp
Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 06.03.2015 12:13, Julian Foad wrote:
[...]
>> In order to build a sane merging system, we expect certain symmetries in
>> the data model.
[...]
>> That generalizes to:
>>
>>* uniformity of the difference from branch1@r1 to branch2@r2
>> for any values of: branch1
On 06.03.2015 12:13, Julian Foad wrote:
> I want to share, briefly, one of the key concepts that is guiding my thinking
> about move tracking. It's nothing amazing, in fact it may seem so obvious
> that it hardly needs mentioning. What's more surprising is that we haven't
> paid more attention t
6 matches
Mail list logo
