You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> on 2010/05/26 19:44:30 UTC
USE_DB_PROPS define
To anybody concerned:
We currently use the USE_DB_PROPS define to filter out the experimental use
of exclusive in-db-properties. Since that will be implemented in format 17,
which is imminent as soon as Greg is home from holiday, I'd like to change
the defines from
#ifndef USE_DB_PROPS
to
#if (SVN_WC__VERSION < SVN_WC__PROPS_IN_DB)
The rationale is that they really just mean the same thing. I'll shortly be
testing the pristine upgrade mechanism, and would like to do a similar thing
for the (albeit more experimental) pristine changes slated for format 18.
Using the format number rather than arbitrary defines makes this testing
much easier.
-Hyrum
Re: USE_DB_PROPS define
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 16:36, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:44, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> > To anybody concerned:
>> > We currently use the USE_DB_PROPS define to filter out the experimental
>> > use
>> > of exclusive in-db-properties. Since that will be implemented in format
>> > 17,
>> > which is imminent as soon as Greg is home from holiday, I'd like to
>> > change
>> > the defines from
>> >
>> > #ifndef USE_DB_PROPS
>> >
>> > to
>> >
>> > #if (SVN_WC__VERSION < SVN_WC__PROPS_IN_DB)
>> >
>> > The rationale is that they really just mean the same thing. I'll
>> > shortly be
>>
>> ... no, they don't.
>>
>> One allows me to test in-db properties by flipping a symbol. The other
>> requires a version bump to test them, which implies a lot of other
>> things. Would failures be caused by in-db properties, or due to some
>> other interaction caused by missing/buggy upgrade logic? Who said that
>> I wanted to test the upgrade logic?
>>
>> I don't understand the rationale for this.
>
> My rationale was that I did want to test the upgrade logic through format 17
> to what could eventually be format 18. My understanding before you left for
> MX was that format 17 was imminent (indeed, I thought it was ready, you just
> didn't want to turn it on for fear of stuff blowing up in your absence). It
> appears that that wasn't correct.
>
> We could revert the change, do some hacky #define madness to allow
> USE_DB_PROPS to have the current meaning if not previously defined, or just
> leave it as is fix the upgrade code in the interests of moving forward. I
> won't have time to hack on the text base upgrade code until Berlin, so I'm
> pretty indifferent in the interim.
Nah... we can leave it in there. It isn't too troublesome. And hey...
my fault for going away on a fabulous sunny vacation, eh? :-P
And the upgrade code isn't/wasn't ready. I slowed down "the rush"
since I already knew it wasn't going to be enabled before I left.
After my commit last night, I think the upgrade code is ready. I just
want to write a few upgrade tests before doing this format bump.
Cheers,
-g
Re: USE_DB_PROPS define
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:44, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > To anybody concerned:
> > We currently use the USE_DB_PROPS define to filter out the experimental
> use
> > of exclusive in-db-properties. Since that will be implemented in format
> 17,
> > which is imminent as soon as Greg is home from holiday, I'd like to
> change
> > the defines from
> >
> > #ifndef USE_DB_PROPS
> >
> > to
> >
> > #if (SVN_WC__VERSION < SVN_WC__PROPS_IN_DB)
> >
> > The rationale is that they really just mean the same thing. I'll shortly
> be
>
> ... no, they don't.
>
> One allows me to test in-db properties by flipping a symbol. The other
> requires a version bump to test them, which implies a lot of other
> things. Would failures be caused by in-db properties, or due to some
> other interaction caused by missing/buggy upgrade logic? Who said that
> I wanted to test the upgrade logic?
>
> I don't understand the rationale for this.
>
My rationale was that I did want to test the upgrade logic through format 17
to what could eventually be format 18. My understanding before you left for
MX was that format 17 was imminent (indeed, I thought it was ready, you just
didn't want to turn it on for fear of stuff blowing up in your absence). It
appears that that wasn't correct.
We could revert the change, do some hacky #define madness to allow
USE_DB_PROPS to have the current meaning if not previously defined, or just
leave it as is fix the upgrade code in the interests of moving forward. I
won't have time to hack on the text base upgrade code until Berlin, so I'm
pretty indifferent in the interim.
-Hyrum
Re: USE_DB_PROPS define
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:44, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> To anybody concerned:
> We currently use the USE_DB_PROPS define to filter out the experimental use
> of exclusive in-db-properties. Since that will be implemented in format 17,
> which is imminent as soon as Greg is home from holiday, I'd like to change
> the defines from
>
> #ifndef USE_DB_PROPS
>
> to
>
> #if (SVN_WC__VERSION < SVN_WC__PROPS_IN_DB)
>
> The rationale is that they really just mean the same thing. I'll shortly be
... no, they don't.
One allows me to test in-db properties by flipping a symbol. The other
requires a version bump to test them, which implies a lot of other
things. Would failures be caused by in-db properties, or due to some
other interaction caused by missing/buggy upgrade logic? Who said that
I wanted to test the upgrade logic?
I don't understand the rationale for this.
>...
Cheers,
-g
Re: USE_DB_PROPS define
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
I made this change in r948899.
-Hyrum
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <
hyrum_wright@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> To anybody concerned:
> We currently use the USE_DB_PROPS define to filter out the experimental use
> of exclusive in-db-properties. Since that will be implemented in format 17,
> which is imminent as soon as Greg is home from holiday, I'd like to change
> the defines from
>
> #ifndef USE_DB_PROPS
>
> to
>
> #if (SVN_WC__VERSION < SVN_WC__PROPS_IN_DB)
>
> The rationale is that they really just mean the same thing. I'll shortly
> be testing the pristine upgrade mechanism, and would like to do a similar
> thing for the (albeit more experimental) pristine changes slated for format
> 18. Using the format number rather than arbitrary defines makes this
> testing much easier.
>
> -Hyrum
>