Hey Subversion folks.
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
>
>
>
>>As for how to structure this work so that it doesn't disrupt the
>>main thrust of Subversion development, I'm thinking that a good
>>first step would be to modify libsvn_fs such that it makes use of a
>>vtable for all calls into the underlying filesystem implementation,
>>as has been discussed on the list before, and then once that's in
>>place in the trunk create a branch for development of the new FS
>>impl.
>>
>>
>
>Glenn Thompson, where aaaaaaaaaare you?
>
Hmmm. I believe this place is called Hell. Let me go check ........
Yup, that's what the sign says!
Dang Guys! I'm never getting out from under my world. Although, My
original plans for Subversion are now coming full circle. So I may be
able get my partners to agree to me working on this stuff.
>
>
>
>>I think it would be better off to do the development in the
>>repository in view of others who may be able to help than in a
>>vacuum as you did with libsvn_ra_svn.
>>
>>
>
>Absolutely. IMO, a libsvn_fs filesystem backend is a toy project
>(sorry if others disagree), but the necessary design modifications
>overlap with a feature (pluggable DB backends) that is widely
>desired. It is imperative that we make these design modifications
>once--and only once--such that all interested parties have the right
>APIs to play with.
>
I'm glad you said API(s). Cause I *STILL* see at least two layers.
>
>I'll gladly wrangle libsvn_fs into the necessary state to allow for
>pluggable backends.
>
CMike, how out-of-date is my old document? I haven't looked at FS code
in forever.
Man I've got major guilt on this.
gat
Received on Tue Mar 30 17:47:57 2004