On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:14:04 -0400, Larry Woodman said: > On 03/22/2012 03:36 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:07:00 -0400, Larry Woodman said: > > > >> So to be clear on this, in that case the intention would be move 3 to 4, > >> 4 to 5 and 5 to 6 > >> to keep the node ordering the same? > > Would it make more sense to do 5->6, 4->5, 3->4? If we move stuff > > from 3 to 4 before clearing the old 4 stuff out, it might get crowded? > > > Yes, I didnt try to imply the order in which pages were moved just > the additional moving necessary. Oh, OK.. :)
Attachment:
pgpntKzjO9KjO.pgp
Description: PGP signature