On 18.12.12 14:25, Thomas Mueller wrote:
Hi,
1) Make the definition of conflicts sufficiently strong to exclude such
cases. That's Tom's proposal from this Thread.
Ah, OK, I thought you meant it could still be a problem even with my
proposal.
I guess failing on (node-level-) conflicts would be the most simple
solution, as a start. It would also simplify checking node type
constraints within oak-core I guess (if we actually want to have strict
checks).
At the beginning, I would probably not try to merge conflicts in oak-core,
and simply fail the commit. If it turns out to be a problem in reality, we
could still change it. Unless, of course, we already know it's a problem?
Yes, this matches the way we currently do it through
AnnotatingConflictHandler in oak-core. We just mark the conflicts and
later fail the commit with the ConflictValidator if such markers are
present.
2) Allow inconsistent journals.
I guess we don't want that. But the question is how close the journal has
to match the original commit, specially "move" and "copy" operations. If
they need to be preserved (do they?), then it's complicated.
There is no use for a journal which is not accurate. After all, if we
consider implementing rebase (OAK-464) on top of the journal, it has to
be accurate.
Michael
Regards,
Thomas
