On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote:
> On second thought, @shadow should work more like @auto than @file in > this regard. In other words, @shadow should not create *recovered* > (not revered) nodes. I plan to do this today. Oops. On third thought, I think creating "recovery" nodes for @shadow files *is* the right thing to do. My second thought was confused. Recovery nodes aren't created for all changed nodes, only *cloned* changed nodes. Thus, there is a real potential for conflict and data loss whenever a recovery node exists. It seems unwise to ignore any situation that result in the creation of recovery nodes: all such situations have the potential to alter data due to the multiple update problem. Edward P.S. I would like to emphasize the following fact about cross file clones. They aren't dangerous *if* you only change them within Leo. All the problems arise because people change cloned data outside of Leo. Usually, people will change only *some* of the cloned data. In that case, Leo has the unenviable job of guessing what clone contains the intended data. In general, Leo can not guess accurately, no matter what "rules" are put into place. Thus, creating recovery nodes is *always* a good thing to do. What we are seeing is the boundary between reasonable and unreasonable uses of cross-file clones. That boundary is not sharp: whether cross-file clones work depend on the overall workflow of the people using them. 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.
