On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 07:49, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> As for how to structure this work so that it doesn't disrupt the main
> thrust of Subversion development, I'm thinking that a good first step
> would be to modify libsvn_fs such that it makes use of a vtable for all
> calls into the underlying filesystem implementation,
Yeah, that will have to be done at some point, of course, though it's
not necessary for prototyping. Since CMike has volunteered to do this
work, I am happy to let him take point on it.
It does appear that there are two different levels where an FS
implementation might wish to diverge from the current one--at the
libsvn_fs/bdb level of making associations, or at the more abstract
libsvn_fs level. Interestingly, kernel filesystems have the same
problem; at least in *BSD, a lot of ufs code is shared between several
filesystems (ffs, mfs, lfs, ext2fs) but there is also a higher-level vfs
abstraction used by more radically different filesystems like nfs.
I don't care much whether we do the work on a branch or on the trunk
with a disabling #ifdef. One requires more merging work and one
potentially puts vestigial code into releases (or requires us to remove
code in dist.sh, which some might find distasteful), but neither cost is
> IMO, a libsvn_fs filesystem backend is a toy project (sorry if others
> disagree), but the necessary design modifications overlap with a
> feature (pluggable DB backends) that is widely desired.
I've observed a significant audience of people who want a
low-administration, easily understood back end, and who don't trust
databases much. We shall see. :) Fortunately, we don't need agreement
on this point.
Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> My initial gut reaction: I find this overview very clever. I'm really
> curious about the proposed single-file format to hold an entire
> revision. There's a bit of hand-waving going on here: this file
> would have to contain a whole tree structure plus multiple node-revs,
> and each node-rev would have to contain text and prop-deltas. I
> wonder: would this magical file format look something like a
> version-3 dumpfile? :-)
There could be similarities, but there would also have to be big
* The FS has to use skip-deltas, whereas a version-3 dumpfile uses
only single-rev deltas.
* The FS needs to be better indexed; in particular, it needs a much
more developed conception of directories than "here are some files which
were added to this directory in rev N."
* Because of the way transactions are built, all the file node-rev
data needs to preceed the directory data in a revision file.
Brandon Ehle wrote:
> Does the current plan fit in with the current pluggable-db work?
> For example, would you be able to use repositories in both formats
> with the same binary executable?
Absolutely. There is no way we'd ever ship an alternative FS
implementation as a compile-time option. It has to be selectable at
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue Mar 30 19:45:47 2004