You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> on 2011/07/07 19:22:40 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1143841 - in /subversion/branches/revprop-packing:
BRANCH-README subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/structure
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:21, <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>...
> +++ subversion/branches/revprop-packing/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/structure Thu Jul 7 14:21:08 2011
> @@ -40,7 +40,9 @@ repository) is:
> revprops/ Subdirectory containing rev-props
> <shard>/ Shard directory, if sharding is in use (see below)
> <revnum> File containing rev-props for <revnum>
> - revprops.db SQLite database of the packed revision properties
> + <shard>.revpack/ Pack directory, if the repo has been packed (see below)
> + revpack Revprops pack file, contains inline manifest (see below)
> + lock Revprops shard lock file (see below)
I didn't follow the lead-up discussion to this branch, but will the
new code automatically manage the transition from the .db file to the
new format? IOW, we have "format 5" repositories in the wild now. Do
we have to burn that number and move to f6? Can f5 mean "we'll see the
old .db and delete it" ... etc
>...
Cheers,
-g
Re: svn commit: r1143841 - in /subversion/branches/revprop-packing:
BRANCH-README subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/structure
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 13:54, Peter Samuelson <pe...@p12n.org> wrote:
>
> [Daniel Shahaf]
>> The only format 5 repositories we have right now 'in the wild' are
>> 1.7-dev code. revprops.db code was never included in a release.
>
> Well unless you count the alphas. But we _do_ warn people not to
> assume anything about them, right? Also, it's not like everyone who
> downloaded our alphas necessarily ran 'svnadmin upgrade' anyway.
While we do warn them, I don't see a need to break their repositories
on them. We just don't support the format that they used. "use alphaN
to dump your repos, then load it into alphaN+1".
They may not have run 'svnadmin upgrade', but they may have created a
new repository that they'd like to keep.
>> If people prefer calling the new format f6 and having a tools/ script
>> that bumps f5 to f6, worksforme. (and by this suggestion f5 would
>> never be supported by released code)
>
> Ah, indeed, f5 has nothing else new in it except revprop packing.
> Indeed, integers are cheap: probably best to roll trunk back to f4 and
> roll the revprop-packing branch up to f6. Code to update from f5 in
> 'svnadmin upgrade' is optional.
That was my thinking, yeah.
Cheers,
-g
Re: svn commit: r1143841 - in
/subversion/branches/revprop-packing: BRANCH-README
subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/structure
Posted by Peter Samuelson <pe...@p12n.org>.
[Daniel Shahaf]
> The only format 5 repositories we have right now 'in the wild' are
> 1.7-dev code. revprops.db code was never included in a release.
Well unless you count the alphas. But we _do_ warn people not to
assume anything about them, right? Also, it's not like everyone who
downloaded our alphas necessarily ran 'svnadmin upgrade' anyway.
> If people prefer calling the new format f6 and having a tools/ script
> that bumps f5 to f6, worksforme. (and by this suggestion f5 would
> never be supported by released code)
Ah, indeed, f5 has nothing else new in it except revprop packing.
Indeed, integers are cheap: probably best to roll trunk back to f4 and
roll the revprop-packing branch up to f6. Code to update from f5 in
'svnadmin upgrade' is optional.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
Re: svn commit: r1143841 - in
/subversion/branches/revprop-packing: BRANCH-README
subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/structure
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Greg Stein wrote on Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 13:22:40 -0400:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:21, <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> >...
> > +++ subversion/branches/revprop-packing/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/structure Thu Jul 7 14:21:08 2011
> > @@ -40,7 +40,9 @@ repository) is:
> > revprops/ Subdirectory containing rev-props
> > <shard>/ Shard directory, if sharding is in use (see below)
> > <revnum> File containing rev-props for <revnum>
> > - revprops.db SQLite database of the packed revision properties
> > + <shard>.revpack/ Pack directory, if the repo has been packed (see below)
> > + revpack Revprops pack file, contains inline manifest (see below)
> > + lock Revprops shard lock file (see below)
>
> I didn't follow the lead-up discussion to this branch, but will the
> new code automatically manage the transition from the .db file to the
> new format? IOW, we have "format 5" repositories in the wild now. Do
> we have to burn that number and move to f6? Can f5 mean "we'll see the
> old .db and delete it" ... etc
>
The only format 5 repositories we have right now 'in the wild' are
1.7-dev code. revprops.db code was never included in a release.
If people prefer calling the new format f6 and having a tools/ script
that bumps f5 to f6, worksforme. (and by this suggestion f5 would never
be supported by released code)
> >...
>
> Cheers,
> -g