On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Brett Henderson wrote:
> The problem has many parallels to source code management as you've pointed
> out. Using subversion as a guide may be helpful. (SNIP) From
> what I can remember, ClearCase MultiSite uses branches with ownership locks
> to prevent concurren
Matt Amos wrote:
> well, in the same way its not possible to create a node, way or
> relation with a specific id via the API. replication to a read-write
> server (like svn up) is going to be A Difficult Problem.
>
Oh, yes. I was thinking it was only a problem for changesets but you're
right,
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Brett Henderson wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> at some point in the future it might be worth taking the changeset ID
>> out of the element parsers and putting it into the controller. whether
>> we want to make the change while 0.6 is so close to release, i'll
>> lea
Matt Amos wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>>I have come across a strange logic twist and want to confuse you
>> with it. (Maybe it was clear to anybody anyway, don't know.)
>>
It wasn't clear to me. I'd never thought about it before :-)
>> API 0.6 suppo
El Lunes, 9 de Febrero de 2009, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com escribió:
> There's not much of a hope of ever implementing such a spec
> 100% conforming.
See? That's my point - there is no way we could ever design a 100% conforming,
400-page-long change format suitable for *all* purposes on the f
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:29:00 +0100, Iván Sánchez Ortega
wrote:
>> you're right, maybe we shouldn't have tried to re-use a server-to-server
>> sync format for client-to-server communications, [...] do we really want
>> YAOCF (yet another OSM change format) when there are already three?
>
> The s
El Lunes, 9 de Febrero de 2009, Matt Amos escribió:
> > API 0.6 supports uploading OsmChange files, with the additional
> > requirement that each node/way/relation contained in the change file be
> > given an extra "changeset" attribute.
>
> at some point in the future it might be worth taking the
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>I have come across a strange logic twist and want to confuse you
> with it. (Maybe it was clear to anybody anyway, don't know.)
>
> API 0.6 supports uploading OsmChange files, with the additional
> requirement that each node/way/relation co
Hi,
I have come across a strange logic twist and want to confuse you
with it. (Maybe it was clear to anybody anyway, don't know.)
API 0.6 supports uploading OsmChange files, with the additional
requirement that each node/way/relation contained in the change file be
given an extra "changese
9 matches
Mail list logo
