cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> 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?).
Hear hear! It seems to me that we've created a command that performs a
totally arcane (and extremely dangerous) function merely in the
interests of grammatical correctness.
On top of that, I'd like to quote C. Mike, from this very list,
sometime in the last year or two:
"Guns don't kill people; people kill people -- but that
doesn't mean we hand out loaded guns as party favors."
What we need is a command that lists unused logfiles. I quite frankly
don't care if we call it "svnadmin john-frink", but that's the command
that we need. Sure db_archive is oddly named, but so what? Let's
forget about all this folderol and just come up with a command name?
My nomination is "svnadmin list-unused-logfiles" or some variant thereof
> > 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.
-Fitz, who has always wanted to use 'folderol' in an email
--
Brian W. Fitzpatrick <fitz_at_red-bean.com> http://www.red-bean.com/fitz/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 22 05:44:43 2003