[not trimming] On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> wrote: > Daniel Shahaf wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 01:39:45AM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>> gst...@apache.org wrote on Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 14:45:02 -0000: >>>> + * <h3>Timing and State</h3> >>>> + * The calls made by the driver to alter the state in the receiver >>>> + * are based on the receiver's *current* state, which includes all >>>> + * prior changes made during the edit. >>> >>> Should we change this to say: >>> >>> + * <h3>Timing and State</h3> >>> + * The calls made by the driver to alter the state in the receiver are >>> + * based on the receiver's *initial* state, which excludes all prior >>> + * changes made during the edit. >>> >>> ? >>> >>> I've reviewed the IRC logs referred to in the log msg [1], as well as >>> today's, and I don't see a good reason to stick with the "refers to >>> current state"; and I do see a good reason to use "refers to initial >>> state": that's closer to the final copyfrom (or moved-from) info. >>> I also find "refers to the initial state" more intuitive. > > Hi Daniel. I could begin to address your question, but discussion of Ev2 > move design is such a big and tricky topic (witness the several hours on IRC > today) that I would humbly request you start a thread with 'Ev2' in the > subject line so we can all track it. Your question here doesn't seem to be > one that merely concerns r1235773 and can be answered with 'yes' and a > follow-up commit. > >> There was some more discussion on IRC today. >> >> It involved the following case: >> svn mv A B; svn mv B/C D; svn ci; >> >> which could be represented in Ev2 as: >> >> move(A, B); move(B/C, D); >> >> or as: >> >> move(A/C, D); move(B, D); > > I assume the copy-source refers to the current state rather than the initial > state in these two options, but either way that second option doesn't make > sense, since there is no node 'B' available to be moved.
It was intended to be: move(A, B); move(B/C, D) or move(A/C, D); move(A, B) The two are the same if you assume current-state. The second also works if you assume initial-state. Cheers, -g
