On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote:
> T +closed 6d42bcbef1a19fce44d20c43869399387b99a97b >> T +closed abfc26f6da112a56821946ae9dff3fee8a0aa205 >> U jan.nijtmans >> >> Therefore I propose to relax the restriction a little >> such that this is allowed: T-cards should still be >> in strict lexographical order, but the artifact-id's >> should be taken into account first. >> > > No. The correct fix is to put the T cards in the right order. > Doesn't Jan's proposal make it possible to define the ordering in that case? If only the card name or the +/-/*card name part is used, there can be collisions (like the J-card case i pointed out earlier, but i'm happy with restricting to unique J-card keys). Without extending the ordering to include (as an ambiguity-buster) the uuid, it's not possible to put those two closed tags in proper order - same key and same timestamp. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
