Blair Zajac wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> Oracle has released version 4.6.19 of its Berkeley DB library.
>> According to
>> my interpretation of the "Upgrading application to 4.6.x"
>> I don't think there's anything especially difficult for us to do in
>> Subversion to make the claim that we support 4.6.x. Some macros for
>> function name differences here, an examination of how we toggle verbose
>> error output there. (Most of the 4.6 changes seem to be focused around
>> replication, which is -- and has been -- the latest hot topic for BDB.)
>> Should we "go there" for Subversion 1.5?
> Using BDB's replication to replicate Subversion repositories would be
> pretty sweet. Presumably, this would also allow us to replicate
> uncommitted transactions, which would be cool (well, cool for my
> project, where I expect long-lived transactions).
Well, BDB has had replication for some time now -- it's not new to 4.6.x.
In fact, back when 4.4 was released, Keith Bostic asked me if I knew of any
monster-sized Subversion datasets. He was wanting to do a proof of concept
using replicated Subversion repositories!
Anyway, my question was *absolutely not* "Should we try to expose BDB
replication in Subversion 1.5?" It was simply "Should we try to make
Subversion's code compile and work against BDB 4.6.x?"
Are you still +1?
C. Michael Pilato <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Thu Sep 13 20:40:35 2007