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

Re: Why svn 2.0 may come sooner than we expected

From: Mark Phippard <MarkP_at_softlanding.com>
Date: 2004-07-02 02:33:33 CEST

Branko ╚ibej <brane@xbc.nu> wrote on 07/01/2004 07:59:35 PM:

> Ben Reser wrote:
> >Greg and I had a long discussion about this on IRC yesterday (or maybe
> >it was the day before that). I disagree with his argument that we have
> >to go to 2.0 just because of this.
> >
> >
> [etc]
> It's a thorny issue, but I agree with Ben here. httpd-2.0.x/apr-0.9.x
> will be around for quite a while, living in parallel with
> httpd-2.2.x/apr-1.x. We can probably remain source compatible with both.

> The same version of SVN *might* support DAV autoversioning better if
> it's compiled against httpd-2.2.x, but as Ben points out, our "feature"
> set already depends on which BDB we're linking with, and this would be
> the same. The svnserve protocol, as a counterexample, doesn't care a bit

> about the size of apr_off_t.
> I'd be very sad if we pushed for a 2.0 release _without_ improving the
> FS schema and (yeaargh!) the WC design.

I also tend to agree with Ben's sentiments. I come from a Windows world,
well actually OS/400, so I do not know if this makes sense in the Unix
world. But ... would it make any sense at all to say that the 1.x
"binaries" would be produced against APR 0.9 but the source would be
compatible with 1.0? That way a user could know that they are making a
choice to potentially break compatability and build against 1.0/2.2 on
their own?

Also, while my understanding of this issue is relatively small, I recall
reading in previous posts that the issue was that the APR structs or some
other thing were directly exposed in the SVN ABI. Would it make sense to
address this in 2.0? So that 2.0 could be built against APR 0.9 or 1.0
and present the same ABI/API? It seems like it would make sense, if this
is even possible, to try to kill this issue for the future ASAP.

Finally, not being a C guru in any sense I do not know the answer to this,
but couldn't Subversion be statically linked to APR 0.9 and still run with
Apache 2.2? I am sure you have all thought of all of these things, so I
apologize if this is all just "noise".


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 2 02:37:01 2004

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.