I guess this makes sense, although I'm curious what MicroKernelIT tests would fail if we simply change headRevisionId in CommitCommandInstructionVisitor to baseRevisionId of Commit. I'm thinking about the case where the passed in revision id is null and also other cases where there are conflicting moves/adds/deletes.
-Mete On 1/9/13 10:36 AM, "Marcel Reutegger" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, > >I was wondering if the use of headRevisionId in >CommitCommandInstructionVisitor >is really correct... isn't it more appropriate to use the base revision >of the associated >commit? > >from my POV it makes more sense to apply instructions on stored nodes >based on >the base revision instead of the head revision. I think this also >explains the behavior >we currently see as described in OAK-507. instead of applying the >instructions on the >revision passed in MK.commit(), the visitor uses the head revision where >the node >is already gone. > >WDYT? > >regards > marcel
