11 ms·
I think the OP meant "most recently changed", not "most changed" :)
by carterehsmith 10y ago
I think the OP meant "most recently changed", not "most changed" :)
- im_down_w_otp 10y agoI don't think so. Though "most recently changed" is pretty useless too. They won't be synchronized in a distributed system, and even on a single machine if it's setup to use something like NTP, then the time won't be monotonically increasing since the clock-sync mechanism can move time both forward and backward. Having now looked at it out of curiousity... http://guide.couchdb.org/draft/conflicts.html http://guide.couchdb.org/draft/conflicts.html "Each revision includes a list of previous revisions. The revision with the longest revision history list becomes the winning revision. If they are the same, the _rev values are compared in ASCII sort order, and the highest wins. So, in our example, 2-de0ea16f8621cbac506d23a0fbbde08a beats 2-7c971bb974251ae8541b8fe045964219." Weird.
- fiatjaf 10y agoNo, I meant "most changed". I don't see how this could be better for a deterministic approach. The recommendations are always that the developer must implement a saner way to resolve the conflicts. In the CouchDB world, however, I have the impression that conflict resolution is ignored most of times, so we are left with this. (I say this based on what I do, other people's code I read on the internet and the concerns of the CouchDB core developers about educating users and developers to setup saner conflict resolution approaches themselves.)