Re: svn filesystem without Berkeley DBM?

On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 06:37:57PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Brian Huddleston wrote:
> > > > Why was Berkeley DBM choosen?
> > >
> > > Given the choice of something or nothing, they chose something.
> > >
> > > Quick, find a non-SQL or non-GPL'd SQL embeddedable server database that
> > > supports transactions.
> >
> > MySQL 3.23. :-)
> It's GPL'd, and besides, the BDB backend wasn't stable enough until around
> 3.23.34, and InnoDB didn't exist until 3.23.34
> 3.23 wasn't declared stable until Jan, 2001 according to mysql's news
> releases.

And we started the FS in summer of 2000.

> MySQL 4.0 is what has libmysqld anyway. It's a new feature of 4.0 to
> support an embedded server.

Cool. That would probably make a great reference point for SVN 2.0 FS
redevelopment.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org