You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Brian Huddleston <br...@huddleston.net> on 2002/03/07 15:48:03 UTC
Re: svn filesystem without Berkeley DBM?
> > Why was Berkeley DBM choosen?
>
> Given the choice of something or nothing, they chose something.
>
> Quick, find a non-SQL or non-GPL'd SQL embeddedable server database that
> supports transactions.
MySQL 3.23. :-)
They've supported transactions for quite a while. (Originally via BDB
interestingly enough, but now they support a few different transactional
backends.)
Probably would've simplfied things a bit to have the SQL rather than the raw
record access but I don't know enough about the implementation to have an
intelligent opinion.
-Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn filesystem without Berkeley DBM?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 09:29:43AM -0600, Brian Huddleston wrote:
>...
> > > 3.23.34, and InnoDB didn't exist until 3.23.34
> > > 3.23 wasn't declared stable until Jan, 2001 according to mysql's news
> > > releases.
> >
> > And we started the FS in summer of 2000.
>
> Heh...this is from the guys using the head of the apache tree? :-)
Hehe... well, the Apache tree is a known quantity, and several people here
have commit access to fix problems. (and I've been an httpd developer for
several years now)
So you could say that the head doesn't scare us :-)
> The mySQL guys have a much tougher view of what constitutes stable that most
> open source projects. Their "beta" is equivalent to most people's 1.0.
Definitely. I've been using MySQL for a while, and have always found it
fine. I was simply trying to point out that transactions weren't really
available when we started. But that was only one of who-knows-how-many
various reasons.
The simple answer is "that's history. we're using it today." :-)
A year from now, as we're developing 2.0? Different story...
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn filesystem without Berkeley DBM?
Posted by Brian Huddleston <br...@huddleston.net>.
> > > MySQL 3.23. :-)
> > It's GPL'd, and besides, the BDB backend wasn't stable enough until
around
Ah that *is* a good reason...back when I was working with it they had a
different license.
> > 3.23.34, and InnoDB didn't exist until 3.23.34
> > 3.23 wasn't declared stable until Jan, 2001 according to mysql's news
> > releases.
>
> And we started the FS in summer of 2000.
Heh...this is from the guys using the head of the apache tree? :-)
The mySQL guys have a much tougher view of what constitutes stable that most
open source projects. Their "beta" is equivalent to most people's 1.0.
> > MySQL 4.0 is what has libmysqld anyway. It's a new feature of 4.0 to
> > support an embedded server.
>
> Cool. That would probably make a great reference point for SVN 2.0 FS
> redevelopment.
Sound cool to me.
-Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn filesystem without Berkeley DBM?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 06:37:57PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Brian Huddleston wrote:
> > > > Why was Berkeley DBM choosen?
> > >
> > > Given the choice of something or nothing, they chose something.
> > >
> > > Quick, find a non-SQL or non-GPL'd SQL embeddedable server database that
> > > supports transactions.
> >
> > MySQL 3.23. :-)
> It's GPL'd, and besides, the BDB backend wasn't stable enough until around
> 3.23.34, and InnoDB didn't exist until 3.23.34
> 3.23 wasn't declared stable until Jan, 2001 according to mysql's news
> releases.
And we started the FS in summer of 2000.
> MySQL 4.0 is what has libmysqld anyway. It's a new feature of 4.0 to
> support an embedded server.
Cool. That would probably make a great reference point for SVN 2.0 FS
redevelopment.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn filesystem without Berkeley DBM?
Posted by Daniel Berlin <da...@dberlin.org>.
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Brian Huddleston wrote:
> > > Why was Berkeley DBM choosen?
> >
> > Given the choice of something or nothing, they chose something.
> >
> > Quick, find a non-SQL or non-GPL'd SQL embeddedable server database that
> > supports transactions.
>
> MySQL 3.23. :-)
It's GPL'd, and besides, the BDB backend wasn't stable enough until around
3.23.34, and InnoDB didn't exist until 3.23.34
3.23 wasn't declared stable until Jan, 2001 according to mysql's news
releases.
MySQL 4.0 is what has libmysqld anyway. It's a new feature of 4.0 to
support an embedded server.
--Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org