On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Ville M. Vainio <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Let us assume that all bugs in @shadow can be removed, so that @shadow >> > will work as reliably as @thin and @file. I believe this is a >> > reasonable assumption. >> >> I've understood that @shadow relies on "blue sky" situation where no >> extensive restructuring of the files happens behind your back (e.g. >> sort-siblings ;-). Thin nodes with explicit sentinels are needed when >> such restructuring is happening. > > Big sigh. Yes, you are correct. @thin or @auto are essential for > cooperation. > > We can still use a files db to reduce the pain of @shadow, but @shadow can > never be good in a cooperative environment. Indeed, committing private > files to bzr would be a terrible idea: synchronizing public and private > files is never going to feasible. > > So it looks like we are stuck with all 9 @<file> types. Boo hoo.
I'm unable to appreciate the details, but I sense a "perfect as enemy of good" type situation. The discussion seems to assume the current feature set and ask the question "How can sentinels be eliminated?" Would there be value in assuming no sentinels and asking "What feature set is possible?" It seems clear that eliminating sentinels has value, and cost. It might be helpful to determine the price, and discuss whether the value returned would be worth it. > > Edward > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
