> As I understood it, our goal in havin checksums has been primarily to
> prevent corrupt data from getting into the repository. That's why
> commits have verified checksums since the beginning. I just now
> committed r8897 (fixing #1774) because 'revert' somehow intuitively
> seemed like a good chance to verify the text base, much like
> 'checkout' and 'update'.
>
> I'm not so sure that 'status' and 'diff' are equally persuasive cases,
> though. And in the case of 'status', we'd pay a speed penalty to do
> verification, since it almost never has to scan the entire text base
> for modified files right now.
I'm not sure if you want to hear a 'user' opinion on your dev-talk,
but since I was the one who filed the 1774 issue I feel a bit involved
in the discussion :-)
my short comment is: I just wanted to be 99.9% sure that what I
have in my local WC (after an svn update) represents the tagged
version on the central repository.
my recommendation: always do an MD5 check when you
write/modify a file (that includes writes to the repository).
no big need to check a file when you just have
to read it. (or maybe add an 'svn verify' command for
the paranoid users like svnadmin verify does for the repos).
==
my long comment:
I found it a great feature that svn performs MD5 checksums on all
the data automatically, because that gives us a very high chance
that when we do a fresh update and compile a release version
for a customer there is almost no chance an error can sneak in.
Ofcourse, using a complete fresh -checkout- could be even safer,
but unfortunetely the total amount of data is ~3GB and I only have
a 100kbyte/s download connection to the central repository -
so I prefer to use my local data and just do an update to the
tagged version on the server, run the final tests, scripts and builds.
In svn, everything that is downloaded fresh from the server gets
MD5 checked - thats perfect. But a few commands (like svn revert)
did move a file into the WC without performing an MD5 check.
> In short: I'm comfortable with the status quo, but wonder what others
> think. (If we agree the status quo is okay, we should probably close
> those two issues as WONTFIX.)
if everything that -writes- to a WC files checks its MD5 (or in the
case of merges, patches checks its sources) I'd say thats more than
enough.
real disk errors should be catched by the underlying filesystem anyway.
just be sure that svn never writes defective data anywhere.
> Thoughts?
hope I could help with that.
:-)
===
c.a.t.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Mar 6 18:33:42 2004