Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> writes:
> --On Tuesday, August 19, 2003 10:57 AM -0500 cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, what was that? You think that 'archive' better described
> > what this subcommand does/did than 'lsdblogs' ?! At least 'lsdblogs' ls's
> > the DB logs. Archive never archived a single thing.
>
> It almost perfectly paralleled BDB's db_archive command.
Also misnamed. Also never archived a thing. But that's history.
> 'lsdblogs' is confusing. (db_archive takes an argument to print out
> *all* logs, so why is it so difficult to do the same? Why must we
> have renamed it?)
If the goal was to make our functionality look like a cheap wrapper
around a misnamed external utility, then yeah, it would have made
sense to stick with 'archive' and '--show-all'. But the goal was to
make our functionality look like, well, *our* functionality. So we
gave the subcommand a name that described what it actually did (and
this is, apparently, some theoretical crime?) and a default behavior
that followed from the name of the subcommand (again, we're doing
something wrong here?).
> The one argument that I'd have for keeping 'archive'/'recover' is that
> I'm betting we're having lots of people whose 'db_recover' in their
> PATH isn't the same as the BDB library they built SVN with. So,
> keeping it within svnadmin makes some sense because I'm betting people
> have run recover against their repository with different BDB builds.
> And, we're fairly sure that will cause repository corruption. --
And this is, in my opinion, the only decent thing to come from the
implementation of these two subcommands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 19 18:20:37 2003