On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 01:46:09PM +0400, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 13:41, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 12:06:40AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:43:29PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: > >> > I'll try to tweak my proposal such that successor ID updates become > >> > transactional and happen as part of every commit. > >> > >> Here's a first shot at this. Comments welcome. > > > > FSFS gurus: > > > > Are any of you looking at this? > > Do you think this is worth writing a prototype implementation for? > > > > I have so far only received feedback from danielsh. This makes me very > > happy but if anyone with a couple more years of FSFS experience under > > their belt could comment I would be even happier. > > > I'm not FSFS guru, but I still feel that FSFS successor ID doesn't > worth to be implemented because there is no strong reasons/usage for > it. For me it looks like bottom-up design approach.
Hmmm... you don't think that auto-resolving tree-conflicts involving moves during merges is worth implementing?
