Re: svn filesystem without Berkeley DBM?

On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 09:29:43AM -0600, Brian Huddleston wrote:
>...
> > > 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.
>
> Heh...this is from the guys using the head of the apache tree? :-)

Hehe... well, the Apache tree is a known quantity, and several people here
have commit access to fix problems. (and I've been an httpd developer for
several years now)

So you could say that the head doesn't scare us :-)

> The mySQL guys have a much tougher view of what constitutes stable that most
> open source projects. Their "beta" is equivalent to most people's 1.0.

Definitely. I've been using MySQL for a while, and have always found it
fine. I was simply trying to point out that transactions weren't really
available when we started. But that was only one of who-knows-how-many
various reasons.

The simple answer is "that's history. we're using it today." :-)

A year from now, as we're developing 2.0? Different story...

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