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

Re: Linux Kernel Summit

From: Brian Behlendorf <brian_at_collab.net>
Date: 2001-04-02 20:45:49 CEST

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

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