On Feb 5, 6:50 am, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I suffered a data reversion yesterday. Leo properly warned me about it, but > this was troubling. So it's time to implement the data-recovery scheme that > Gil and I hashed out. "Troubling" is an understatement. I am much happier now. Preliminary work shows that creating a "Recovered Nodes" node will be easy. Even better, I plan to abandon the dubious rules for which nodes should win clone battles. These rules complicate the code, and are impossible either to remember or fully justify. The new scheme will recover from *all* clone battles. Doing so simplifies some extremely important code. In fact, it's conceivable that bugs in that code actually caused the data reversion. We will soon have a much more robust error-recovery scheme. All clone conflicts will create nodes in the "Recovered Nodes" tree. For safety, such nodes will not themselves be clones, so the users can deal with them (or not) at their leisure. 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.
