Re: current plan for WC

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Re-reading your original email...
>
> The new API allows for compressing the text base files. Pretty much
> transparently. So yah... there could be improvements.
>
> But I still maintain that it doesn't matter. 1.6 comes with a lot of
> improvements, and it needs sqlite.

Could "entries" be moved to sqlite for 1.6? Too much work? Seems
like that would yield an improvement.

> Inside, we start moving towards a maintainable WC library, which
> everybody has wanted for something like three years now. So my opinion
> is pretty much "done deal" unless there is a better way to make some
> steps towards a cleaner WC library.

Your explanation of how this will improve maintainable (and not be
throw-away work) helped me understand better. Thanks.

Is the minimum requires SQLite version going to be a problem? I
recall for merge tracking we were requiring a really old version and
even then some systems did not have it. I know everyone "loves
libraries" but maybe we ought to take the approach of compiling the
version we need into our library? Everyone talks about how easy that
would be to do, but we did not do it back when 1.5 was using SQLite.
I recall getting the library built on Windows was a PITA.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org