On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 03:29, Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> wrote: > Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 16:54, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> 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 copies of mixed-rev subtrees. > > NODES still contains the copyfrom revision, it's the revision column > when op_depth > 0.
Aware of that. At one point, it was considered to be "left behind" in the WORKING_NODE table (since it doesn't apply to BASE nodes). But when I started thinking about mixed-rev working copies, I moved the copyfrom_* fields into the NODES definition. Later, when you guys found that a single table solution was best, then it was going in no matter what. I'm just saying that it was already there to support mixed-rev, so I'm simply confirming your conclusion of a single op_depth for copy operations. Cheers, -g
