On Sep 17, 2007, at 0:31, Chris Goffinet wrote:
1) Okay. Does it make sense then to just implement a 'revision' into the item struct? That way we can just revision++ on new 'set'?
I think you'd need a global counter. You wouldn't want a set -> delete -> set to tell you that your value is the same between those two sets.
2) I'll add support for those 3 again so you can see what happened. I'll look into draining the output correctly so client's won't have an issue with this.
There's a drain state, but it ends strangely for the text protocol, I believe.
-- Dustin Sallings
