SVN 1.3.1 and Berkeley DB 4.4.x integration.

[kf...@collab.net]

Brane, about how much work is left to finish of the BDB 4.4 stuff?
I'm referring to issue #2449, which is marked resolved/fixed, but at
one point recently you said you still had some local changes in your
working copy that needed to be checked in.

It'd be great the improved BDB support could be in 1.3.1, and if we
could set a rough date for 1.3.1 too.  But if these two things are in
conflict, that's something we should deal with now...

Thoughts?

-Karl

-- 
www.collab.net  <>  CollabNet  |  Distributed Development On Demand

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: SVN 1.3.1 and Berkeley DB 4.4.x integration.

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Want to commit the other nitfixes to trunk, so at least they can get
> reviewed while you're working on the free-memory-read poolio?
>   
Already done, r18434.

-- Brane


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: SVN 1.3.1 and Berkeley DB 4.4.x integration.

[kf...@collab.net]

Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
> I'm working on this right now. The remaining issue is a
> free-memory-read that can happen during apr_terminate when an svn_fs_t
> lives longer than the associated cached environment, because its pool
> was created earlier. It's a fsck'ing nuisance, since it means that we
> can't pools to allocate the environment descriptors (and yet _have_ to
> use pools to keep the open DB_CONFIG file handle in).
> 
> If anyone thinks pools are fun, you ain't seen nothin' yet. I'd be
> inclined to not fix this at all, except that it could cause random
> coredumps on even randomer systems. Yuck.
> 
> (There were a few other nits to pick, but I've already fixed those in
> my tree.)

Thanks for the update.

Want to commit the other nitfixes to trunk, so at least they can get
reviewed while you're working on the free-memory-read poolio?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: SVN 1.3.1 and Berkeley DB 4.4.x integration.

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Karl Fogel wrote:
>
>   
>> Brane, about how much work is left to finish of the BDB 4.4 stuff?
>> I'm referring to issue #2449, which is marked resolved/fixed, but at
>> one point recently you said you still had some local changes in your
>> working copy that needed to be checked in.
>>
>> It'd be great the improved BDB support could be in 1.3.1, and if we
>> could set a rough date for 1.3.1 too.  But if these two things are in
>> conflict, that's something we should deal with now...
>>     
>
> I too would like to see the BDB 4.4 support in 1.3.1 -- what's left to
> do on it?
>   
I'm working on this right now. The remaining issue is a free-memory-read 
that can happen during apr_terminate when an svn_fs_t lives longer than 
the associated cached environment, because its pool was created earlier. 
It's a fsck'ing nuisance, since it means that we can't pools to allocate 
the environment descriptors (and yet _have_ to use pools to keep the 
open DB_CONFIG file handle in).

If anyone thinks pools are fun, you ain't seen nothin' yet. I'd be 
inclined to not fix this at all, except that it could cause random 
coredumps on even randomer systems. Yuck.


(There were a few other nits to pick, but I've already fixed those in my 
tree.)

-- Brane


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: SVN 1.3.1 and Berkeley DB 4.4.x integration.

[Daniel Rall <dl...@collab.net>]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Karl Fogel wrote:

> Brane, about how much work is left to finish of the BDB 4.4 stuff?
> I'm referring to issue #2449, which is marked resolved/fixed, but at
> one point recently you said you still had some local changes in your
> working copy that needed to be checked in.
> 
> It'd be great the improved BDB support could be in 1.3.1, and if we
> could set a rough date for 1.3.1 too.  But if these two things are in
> conflict, that's something we should deal with now...

I too would like to see the BDB 4.4 support in 1.3.1 -- what's left to
do on it?
-- 

Daniel Rall