[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: SVNDIFF1 is ready to merge

From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin_at_dberlin.org>
Date: 2005-12-21 15:05:42 CET

On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 11:31 +0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 12:34 +0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >
> >>Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >>
> >>>So svndiff1 is ready to merge.
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >>>The internal bdb and fsfs formats have been bumped, but we still support
> >>>the "old" format simultaneously.
> >>
> >>
> >>Hmm. Issue here. The FS format numbers are bumped, but not the REPOS
> >>format number. However, we haven't bumped the REPOS format number since
> >>before we created the concept of separate FS format numbers, so old
> >>versions of Subversion will totally ignore the FS format number. Problem?
> >
> >
> > Possibly, but there is nothing we can do here to fix it, i think.
>
>
> Uhh, yes there is. You have to bump the REPOS format number too. Then
> the problem is fixed.
>

I'm a bit confused then.
You said "we haven't bumped the repos format number since *before* we
created the concept of separate FS format numbers".

That implies that it wasn't bumped when separate FS format numbers were
created.

Which means the internal format numbers can't ever be the only thing
bumped, because older versions don't look at them.

Which brings me to the question.
If we can't actually just bump the internal FS format numbers when
completely internal changes are made, why are they there and checked?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Dec 25 05:16:51 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.