Re: NODES table - conditional compilation for op_depth
Greg Stein writes: > Seems like this will make things even more complicated. I'd be in > favor of *not* switching to NODES unless/until the op_depth is done > properly. If you switch early, then you're going to require another > format bump to reset all the op_depth fields to their proper values. I > don't think an early-switch to NODES before proper op_depth > computation will buy us anything. There is an overhead to maintaining both sets of code. It's possible to build the wrong version, run regression tests with the wrong version, or break the other version. -- Philip
Re: NODES table - conditional compilation for op_depth
Seems like this will make things even more complicated. I'd be in favor of *not* switching to NODES unless/until the op_depth is done properly. If you switch early, then you're going to require another format bump to reset all the op_depth fields to their proper values. I don't think an early-switch to NODES before proper op_depth computation will buy us anything. Cheers, -g On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:00, Julian Foad wrote: > Philip and I have started implementing op_depth in the NODES table, but > we soon found there is more to do than simply calculating a value here > and there. > > ("Implementing op_depth" means enabling multiply nested > copies/replacements/adds/deletes etc., with the ability to revert at > each level.) > > In the meantime, some tests were breaking, so we have made the full > op_depth support conditional on SVN_WC__OP_DEPTH. > > Why? The interim 0/1/2 op_depth values have been working OK in the > limited context of the amount of nesting that BASE+WORKING supports. We > might want to make a transition from BASE_NODE/WORKING_NODE to NODES > first, before enabling the full op_depth support. That is probably the > main reason why this further conditional is useful. The alternative > would be to complete op_depth support before switching the default build > over to NODES. > > Any concerns about working within SVN_WC__OP_DEPTH? > > - Julian > > >
NODES table - conditional compilation for op_depth
Philip and I have started implementing op_depth in the NODES table, but we soon found there is more to do than simply calculating a value here and there. ("Implementing op_depth" means enabling multiply nested copies/replacements/adds/deletes etc., with the ability to revert at each level.) In the meantime, some tests were breaking, so we have made the full op_depth support conditional on SVN_WC__OP_DEPTH. Why? The interim 0/1/2 op_depth values have been working OK in the limited context of the amount of nesting that BASE+WORKING supports. We might want to make a transition from BASE_NODE/WORKING_NODE to NODES first, before enabling the full op_depth support. That is probably the main reason why this further conditional is useful. The alternative would be to complete op_depth support before switching the default build over to NODES. Any concerns about working within SVN_WC__OP_DEPTH? - Julian