On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote: > On 07.09.2013 12:47, Greg Stein wrote: >... >> I'm curious why a move() would be sent to a client. > > Off the top of my head: > > * It would help find better solutions to a category of tree conflicts > that we currently do not handle very well.
Hmm. Yeah, I could see this. A local-edit could (easily) be re-applied to an incoming-move. > * It allows the client to optimize working copy changes, issueing > filesystem-level moves of files and directories instead of rewriting > and deleting them. In large working copies, a rename of a directory > can be very expensive in the current copy+delete implementation. Dunno about this. But it isn't really here/there. There is a lot of work in between :-) > But I'm astounded that you'd even consider having an asymmetric editor > API. After all, it's not constrained to client<->server communication. Nope. Just being pragmatic. The server is never mixed-rev. The client is. You've been making that abundantly clear, and I think a reasonable answer is constraint. > It seems obvious to me in hindsight that Ev2 was designed mostly with > the client->server direction in mind, and kind of ignored the issues on > the working-copy side. Look at the notes. And my emails. It was designed for atomicity, for random-access, and to move away from a bare vtable. I could probably list others. Whatever. Ev1 is stone age. Ev2 is industrial age. If you think we can make a further jump... fine. It didn't ignore "issues". It simply tries to make a positive move forwards. Was wc-ng perfect? FSX? Ev2? ... nope. With that in mind, I suggested that a move() to the client isn't an appropriate operation. It is *way* too complex. We have a hojillion other problems that can be solved Right Now. >... > But high-level features such as mixed-revision working > copies, switched subtrees, sparse trees etc. do have a non-trivial impact. Yeah. That crap scares me :-) But I return to: can we make forward progress without painting ourselves into a corner? Can we *also* do that without analysis paralysis? Can we solve the 90%? (without waiting for the 100%?) Cheers, -g
