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

Re: Repository GUIDs again

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2003-01-08 03:05:24 CET

"Bill Tutt" <rassilon@lyra.org> writes:
> I agree that there isn't a good techincal argument for storing the GUID
> as a rev-prop. Sticking it in a file seems lame by comparison though.
> It's part of the repository, either stick it into a real BDB table and
> load/dump it, or be lazy and use a rev-prop on revision 0.

Just in case others got confused too, I'd like to point out a
conversational convention that's been useful in the Chicago office:

When talking about "filesystem" vs "repository", the former means just
the Berkeley DB tables in db/, and the latter means the whole
repository, that is, everything under db/'s *parent*.

As a general rule, we try to keep the filesystem a generic mechanism
for storing versioned trees, and put everything else into the
non-filesystem portion of the repository (see the second comment in
issue #1065 for a classic example of the distinction).

Bill, I'm assuming what you meant above is "It's part of the
filesystem". (I think it's fine to put it in a file in the top-level
repository dir, by the way; but it's a bit of a bikeshed anyway. This
post was more to facilitate smooth communications than argue one way
or the other.)


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 8 03:50:09 2003

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.