On Mar 27, 9:06 am, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I believe that in each case, Leo will continue to work when the > "laggard" file is eventually committed. I suppose there are some > "round trip" proofs involved, so not all the i's have been dotted and > the t's crossed, but I don't anticipate problems. Just to be clear, the question is whether a Leo user will get the same result regardless of the order in which they pull the public or private version of a particular file from bzr. This is similar to the square "transitivity diagrams" one sees throughout advanced abstract algebra texts. My intuition is that the results will always be the same. Not proven, but we can stand the situation on its head by requiring that the @shadow logic preserve this transitivity requirement. Again, I do not foresee any major problems in this area. Edward P.S. This issue never arises for non-Leo users because they never use private files. P.P.S. I suppose it is just barely possible that some kind of interweaving of commits from Leo and non-Leo users could cause problems, but for now this does not concern me. EKR --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
