On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:36:05 PM UTC-5 spike wrote: Having read the discussion on #1348 (thank you for the link), I must > strongly disagree with this assessment. > > There were two problems involved in that bug: > 1) Leo created a spurious vnode when reading an outline. > 2) This exposed a timing race due to using timestamp based IDs. > > Introducing UUIDs was a proposed solution. Sequence numbers were the > chosen alternative. Both were reasonable. >
Interesting. I don't remember the details, so you may well be correct. Using username and timestamp information in your workflow is both fair > and reasonable. Blaming UUIDs for a bug caused by improper use of > timestamps is neither. > Thanks for these remarks. All I remember was the pain of the bugs, so perhaps you are correct that UUIDs were not the real culprit. This is not a hot button issue for me. I'm often wrong about details. It seems we both agree that the present scheme is reasonable. Let's leave it at that. Anyway, it's way too late to consider significant changes to Leo for 6.7.0, and any change to Leo's file format qualifies as a *highly* significant change :-) Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/b2e6a3da-8590-422c-a813-0c618b58cdf4n%40googlegroups.com.
