On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Greg Hudson wrote:
> For checksums in the DB: Larry makes a good argument that if you're
> storing very valuble data, you want checksums (or some other form of
> redundancy) in your permanent storage, and you want to periodically
> verify that none of the data is corrupt. On the other hand, we're not
> particularly targeting very expensive data; we're targeting the open
> source community, according to our web pages. So, I would say: we
> should ensure that our DB format is extensible enough to support
> adding per-revision fields, and we should treat this as a "some day"
> feature unless someone feels inspired to implement it right away.
I'm quite certain that I'd be in the doghouse if the CVS repository for
apache.org became corrupted in a non-recoverable way. I would consider
the db of any long-running open source project to be very expensive, just
a different form of expense.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:27 2006