[email protected] (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
> [email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> 2. Upon rollback from P to N, keep all the generations, but use P+1 >> for the next generation number. Doesn’t work, because rolling back >> from P+1 would bring you back to P instead of N. > > Perhaps we can eventually move to an actual tree structure where the > nodes can be named whatever. I agree this would be the right thing for a real undo mechanism. But how useful would it be? I’ve never been in a situation where rollback/switch-generation would be insufficient or inappropriate. I’m concerned that this would add both code and user interface complexity for mostly hypothetical use cases. WDYT? Thanks, Ludo’.
