On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 11:36:58PM -0800, David Anderson wrote:
> [good stuff]
* I don't think we should try providing two libsvn_wc implementations.
Either libsvn_wc_sqlite can implement all the public svn_wc functions
or it can't. If the former is true, we should just replace the
implementation. If the latter, I don't see how we can make this usable
without declaring Subversion 2.0 (in which case, see the former).
* You mention that we aren't seeing any movement on optional textbases
due to the state of libsvn_wc. From what I understand, it's not just
the state of the implementation, but the assumptions by the _users_
of libsvn_wc as to how the implementation works. I understood that
the next step in fixing those problems should be to remove some of
those assumptions from the current users. That's still true even if
you replace libsvn_wc.
* I like the design of using a single (SQLite) database in the root of
the working copy. I agree that we'd need a severability operation for
those people who need to use it, but that we can make that explicit.
From what I recall, that was the same conclusion some of us reached
at the Summit in October (though I can't remember who was involved in
* I think the 'svn edit' mode of operation shows some promise, but I
think we should put off implementation until we have the current mode
working well. We should take it into account in the design though.
I think that the next steps should be to write down the problems we're
trying to solve (and those we aren't) and come up with a concrete design
that we can validate against those requirements. I'd also like to know:
- how we're going to solve the assumptions made by users of libsvn_wc
in our codebase (I don't think we need to worry about assumptions
made by other users). For example, do we introduce operations to
encapsulate access to the text-base files.
- what we can learn from how other implementations work. SVK has its
own working copy storage, for example.
Finally: I'd love to help. I'm not sure how much time I'll have though.
Received on Wed Jan 17 13:26:45 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored