On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 13:52, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > 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? > No, I think that auto-resolving tree-conflicts involving moves is most important task for Subversion 1.8. But I feel it could be implemented without implementing FSFS successor ID storage. It seems that algorithm that you posted could be reversed.
Anyway we can implement top-level part of handling moves and then optimize it using FSFS successor ID storage or something else. -- Ivan Zhakov
