Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-20 Thread Greg Stein
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:21, Julian Foad julian.f...@wandisco.com wrote: Greg Stein wrote: ... Also, please note that I want to expand the presence values dramatically with this move to NODES. I suggest the following new values: Can you explain what these would mean, and what are the main

Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-20 Thread Julian Foad
On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 13:17 -0400, Greg Stein wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:21, Julian Foad julian.f...@wandisco.com wrote: Greg Stein wrote: ... Also, please note that I want to expand the presence values dramatically with this move to NODES. I suggest the following new values:

Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-20 Thread Julian Foad
On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 18:45 +0100, Julian Foad wrote: On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 13:17 -0400, Greg Stein wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:21, Julian Foad julian.f...@wandisco.com wrote: Greg Stein wrote: ... Also, please note that I want to expand the presence values dramatically with

Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-20 Thread Greg Stein
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 14:07, Julian Foad julian.f...@wandisco.com wrote: On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 18:45 +0100, Julian Foad wrote: ... FULL SET OF VALUES The values listed above cover most of the cases.  Next we must consider how to get a full set of values to represent all possible changes.

Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-20 Thread Greg Stein
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 15:36, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ... Erik and I talked further on IRC... I believe the right approach is a simple boolean prior-deleted, meaning the nodes visible just under *this* layer have been deleted. Examining the root node's moved_to column can refine

Re: [PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-16 Thread Julian Foad
Greg Stein wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 13:29, Julian Foad julian.f...@wandisco.com wrote: Bert, Erik, Greg... I think the schema should not disallow the 'excluded' presence in NODES table where op_depth 0 (which corresponds roughly to old WORKING_NODE). There are already 'copy'

[PATCH] NODES table presence values

2010-09-15 Thread Julian Foad
Bert, Erik, Greg... I think the schema should not disallow the 'excluded' presence in NODES table where op_depth 0 (which corresponds roughly to old WORKING_NODE). There are already 'copy' cases where it is used, and seems useful and right. I also think the schema should not disallow 'absent'.