| 1 |
James <wireless@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
>[cr |
| 3 |
> DAG's |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
All this can work only if you reflect the complete history |
| 6 |
in the DAG. Such approaches had been discussed and eliminated |
| 7 |
as unrealistic: You do not want to keep the history forever; |
| 8 |
the data will always grow and eventually be too much. |
| 9 |
Moreover, there can be overlays which might be added, |
| 10 |
perhaps eventually are abondened, replaced by other |
| 11 |
overlays, etc. It is not realistic to expect a complete |
| 12 |
history from them since you installed once from them. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
One must face the fact that at one stage you have the tree you |
| 15 |
installed and at another stage you have the current tree with |
| 16 |
possibly dramatic changes and no complete history of all changes. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
In the lack of such a history, simply there is information |
| 19 |
missing to decide the correct proceeding. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
You have to choose your poison which is either to take |
| 22 |
the old tree or the new tree as a basis (and to fill the |
| 23 |
gaps from the other tree). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Exactly. The current tools are insufficient |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The available information is *in principle* insufficient. |
Archives