On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 16:05, Bert Huijben <b...@vmoo.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: phi...@apache.org [mailto:phi...@apache.org] >> Sent: woensdag 18 augustus 2010 12:17 >> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org >> Subject: svn commit: r986865 - /subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data >> >> Author: philip >> Date: Wed Aug 18 19:16:59 2010 >> New Revision: 986865 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=986865&view=rev >> Log: >> Some initial thoughts about NODE_DATA from the Sheffield meeting. >> >> * notes/wc-ng/node-data: New. >> >> Added: >> subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data (with props) >> >> Added: subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node- >> data?rev=986865&view=auto >> ========================================================== >> ==================== >> --- subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data (added) >> +++ subversion/trunk/notes/wc-ng/node-data Wed Aug 18 19:16:59 2010 >> @@ -0,0 +1,255 @@ >> +NODE_DATA Design (Sheffield 2010-08-18) >> +======================================= >> + >> +Essentially it replaces BASE_NODE and WORKING_NODE by combining all >> +the existing columns with a new op_depth column where op_depth == 0 is >> +the old BASE_NODE and op_depth != 0 is the old WORKING_NODE. > > I don't think it *replaces* BASE_NODE and WORKING_NODE. It will contain data > for both, but it doesn't replace these tables. > > Maybe it can replace WORKING_NODE, but BASE_NODE has more information than > the columns you list here. Thinks like the repos_relpath and copyfrom_* are > only defined on BASE and/or an operation root. > > That is why they are still modeled to stay on BASE_NODE and WORKING_NODE. And > last time I looked at the design, translated_size and last_mod_time (used for > optimizing away comparisions from things like 'svn status') were still on > BASE and WORKING as they are only relevant for nodes that are in the wc. >
Right. dav_cache is another. copyfrom_* is arguable, as moving those into NODE_DATA would better support a copy of a mixed-rev working copy (and in the future, mixed-repos). But that said, there is an argument for combining all three conceptual tables into one. Is that was you guys were suggesting? Cheers, -g
