On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 03:29, Philip Martin wrote:
> Greg Stein writes:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 16:54, Julian Foad wrote:
>>>...
>>> Earlier today on IRC, Philip and I came to the conclusion that a copy of
>>> a mixed-rev subtree (at least from BASE) should be all at the *same*
>>> op_depth.
Greg Stein writes:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 16:54, Julian Foad wrote:
>>...
>> Earlier today on IRC, Philip and I came to the conclusion that a copy of
>> a mixed-rev subtree (at least from BASE) should be all at the *same*
>> op_depth.
>
> Right. This is why the original NODES table had copyfro
Eric,
I committed in r1004834 my other tweaks, comments and queries.
- Julian
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 16:54, Julian Foad wrote:
>...
> Earlier today on IRC, Philip and I came to the conclusion that a copy of
> a mixed-rev subtree (at least from BASE) should be all at the *same*
> op_depth.
Right. This is why the original NODES table had copyfrom_rev in it --
to support copi
On Tue, 2010-10-05, e...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: ehu
> Date: Tue Oct 5 19:56:52 2010
> New Revision: 1004792
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1004792&view=rev
> Log:
> * notes/wc-ng/nodes: Add more explanation of how the table works.
Excellent! We can much more easily agree and di
5 matches
Mail list logo
